FOTCM Logo
Cassiopaea
  • EN
  • FR
  • DE
  • RU
  • TR
  • ES
  • ES

The Wave Chapter 31: The Priory of Sion and The Shepherds of Arcadia

The entry of the Prieuré de Sion or Priory of Sion onto the world stage occurred via the efforts of Henry Lincoln, Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh. It all began rather innocently when Lincoln, a television writer, was on an ordinary family vacation back in 1969, at which time he stumbled upon a little mystery that he had no idea was soon going to explode into the mass consciousness as a result of his curiosity. He writes in Holy Blood, Holy Grail:

en route for a summer holiday in the Cévennes, I made the casual purchase of a paperback. Le Tresor Maudit [The Accursed Treasure] by Gérard de Sède was a mystery story — a lightweight, entertaining blend of historical fact, genuine mystery, and conjecture. It might have remained consigned to the post-holiday oblivion of all such reading had I not stumbled upon a curious and glaring omission in its pages.

The ‘accursed treasure’ of the title had apparently been found in the 1890s by a village priest through the decipherment of certain cryptic documents unearthed in his church. Although the purported texts of two of these documents were reproduced, the ‘secret messages’ said to be encoded within them were not. The implication was that the deciphered messages had again been lost. And yet, as I found, a cursory study of the documents reproduced in the book reveals at least one concealed message. Surely the author had found it. In working on his book he must have given the documents more than fleeting attention. He was bound, therefore, to have found what I had found. Moreover, the message was exactly the kind of titillating snippet of ‘proof’ that helps to sell a ‘pop’ paperback. Why had M. de Sède not published it? (Baigent et al. 2005, 10)

Lincoln goes on to say that this little omission continued to bother him “like an unfinished crossword puzzle,” so he decided to see if he couldn’t get funded to investigate it for a possible television show, thus satisfying his personal curiosity within the constraints of his work schedule which did not allow time for the investigation he would have liked to undertake.

The idea was received favorably by his employers at the BBC, and he was sent to dig deeper into the mystery so as to make a short film. Lincoln arranged to meet the author of the book, M. de Sède in Paris in 1970 and there, asked him the question, “Why didn’t you publish the message hidden in the parchments?” De Sède’s answer astounded Lincoln: “What message?”

It seemed inconceivable to me that he was unaware of this elementary message. Why was he fencing with me? Suddenly I found myself reluctant to reveal exactly what I had found. We continued an elliptical verbal fencing match for a few minutes. It thus became apparent that we were both aware of the message. I repeated my question, ‘Why didn’t you publish it?’ This time de Sède’s answer was calculated, ‘Because we thought it might interest someone like you to find it for yourself.’

That reply, as cryptic as the priest’s mysterious documents, was the first clear hint that the mystery of Rennes-le-Château was to prove much more than a simple tale of lost treasure. (Baigent et al. 2005, 10—11)

What kind of answer was that? Was Mr. Lincoln dealing with a very clever con artist, or some forces that were unknown? After all, nobody forced him to buy the book and read it; nobody forced him to be curious about the hidden message; nobody forced him to seek to investigate further. It was all a series of chance events. Or so it would seem. Nevertheless, there was the most curious fact that a number of documents, Dossiers secrets, had been “published” (i.e. deposited in the Bibliotheque Nationale of France) several years in advance of Gerard de Sède’s book and Henry Lincoln’s curiosity.

The earliest of these documents, dated August of 1965, is entitled Les descendants Merovingiens ou l’enigme du Razes Wisigoth (“The Merovingian descendants, or the enigma of Razes of the Visigoths”). Its purported author is a Madeleine Blancasall, and claims to have been translated from German by a Vincent Celse-Nazaire, and supposedly published by the Grande Loge Alpina. The document describes the descent of the Merovingians from their alleged biblical origin to the twentieth century, by way of the family of Plantard. The genealogy is signed by a Henri Lobineau.

Now, of course, M. de Sède helpfully informed Henry Lincoln in advance that he must not look under the name “Lobineau,” but instead “Schidlof.” Henry Lincoln notes that “Madeleine Blancassal” is clearly made up from a reference to Rennes-le-Château’s patron saint, Marie-Madeleine, linked with the names of the two rivers, the Blanque and the Sals which conjoin just to the south of Rennes-le-Bains, a town near Rennes-le-Château (Baigent et al. 2005, 111). And, of course, we note that the church of Rennes-les-Bains is dedicated to the two saints Celse and Nazaire. The Grande Loge Alpina, the main lodge of Swiss Freemasonry, denies all knowledge of this little work.

Nine months after the deposit of this curious genealogy, in May of 1966, another document was deposited in the Bibliotheque Nationale. It also bears the imprint of the Grande Loge Alpina and the title is Un tresor Merovingien a Rennes-le-Château. The author is Antoine l’Ermite. The grotto of St. Antony the Hermit is only a short distance from Rennes.

One month later, June 1966, another document was deposited in the Bibliotheque entitled Pierres gravees du Languedoc, and this was a purported reprint of an earlier book published in 1884 by Austrian historian, Eugene Stublein. Stublein did exist and did publish a book in 1877 entitled Description d’un voyage aux establissements thermaux de l’arrondissement de Limoux. There is, apparently, no known extant real copy of his 1884 book of which the 1966 version purports to be a copy.

Papers in the Dossiers also suggest that the author of the genealogies, Lobineau, was a pseudonym for this same Leo Schidlof, who had died in Switzerland the previous year. Schidlof’s daughter has insisted that he knew nothing of genealogy. So, we find a dead man’s name being used to give credibility to something with which he probably had absolutely no connection.

Then, in March of 1967, still another document was deposited in the Bibliotheque Nationale. It was entitled Le serpent rouge, and this one had three authors: Messieurs de Koker, Saint-Maxent and Feugere. There is some disagreement over the date on which, after the necessary red tape had been gone through, the document was considered to be officially published. The Depot legal states March 20, but Lincoln et al. gave it as January 17. This matter was investigated by another researcher, Franck Marie, who claims to have established the date of February 15. Whatever the date of deposit, it is a fact that Louis Saint-Maxent and Gaston de Koker were found hanged on March 6, and Pierre Feugere the following day.

Were these three men victims of revenge or a suicide pact as de Sède suggests? Their respective families all insist that the three were absolutely unacquainted with one another and that their deaths by hanging, so close to one another in time, are just horrible coincidence. The obvious conclusion is that someone found the names of three unrelated persons with suitable deaths in the French newspapers, put their names on this document, and then deposited it after falsifying the deposition slip, and that the date of March 20, as given by the Bibliotheque Nationale, is the correct date. Again, we have dead men being made authors of books they probably knew nothing about.

At about the same time of the publication of Gerard de Sède’s book L’or de Rennes, another document attributed to Henri Lobineau was deposited with the Bibliotheque Nationale entitled Dossiers secrets. Lincoln and colleagues say it was:

…a thin, nondescript volume, a species of folder with stiff covers which contained a loose assemblage of ostensibly unrelated items — news clippings, letters pasted to backing-sheets, pamphlets, numerous genealogical trees and the odd printed page apparently extracted from the body of some other work. Periodically some of the individual pages would be removed. At different times other pages would be freshly inserted. On certain pages additions and corrections would sometimes be made in a minuscule longhand. At a later date, these pages would be replaced by new ones, printed and incorporating previous emendations. (Baigent et al. 2005, 112)

The main thrust of this odd collection of items was the establishing of Pierre Plantard de Saint-Clair as a direct lineal descendant of Dagobert II, who was assassinated in 679 and was not known to have had any legitimate issue. It seems that the name “Lobineau,” was derived from the Rue Lobineau near Saint-Sulpice in Paris, the church that plays a significant part in the story of Bérenger Saunière.

But, before we proceed, let’s just give the story itself a general overview: In 1885, at the age of 33, Abbé Bérenger Saunière became priest of Rennes-le-Château and employed a young girl named Marie Denarnaud as his housekeeper. She became his lifetime companion and confidante. The church was terribly run down and the village was poor and it seemed that Abbé Saunière faced a life of penury and obscurity.

However, he received a serendipitous donation (though the source of this money varies from researcher to researcher) and decided to upgrade his church a bit. During the renovation work, he supposedly discovered some mysterious documents containing a coded message. He then made a trip to Paris and hung out with some fellows with connections to the Parisian occult world, purchased copies of an odd selection of paintings from the Louvre, and returned to Rennes. At this point it is said that his behavior suggested strange doings. He was reported to have been tramping around the country side collecting rocks, holing up in the church doing secretive things at night, and then, ultimately, redecorating the church in a bizarre way. At some point, he traveled a great deal and it was reported that money poured in to his housekeeper during his travels, originating, it is said, from various religious houses around Europe. Over the next twenty years, Abbé Saunière allegedly spent huge amounts of money on his building projects, entertaining lavishly, living the high life and other activities.

That’s the basic story. Of course, there were a couple of murders tossed in for good measure and an on-again, off-again friendship with another priest who was equally mysterious and clearly involved in whatever was going on.

The region already had legends of buried treasure, and now it was thought that Abbé Saunière found it or, at least, part of it. Now, the curious story of the “accursed treasure” of Rennes-le-Château was to be brought to the attention of the world by the BBC through the efforts of Henry Lincoln.

At his meeting with Gerard de Sède, Lincoln indicated that he wanted to make this short television program. De Sède agreed to assist in such a project by digging up all the information he could and sending it to Lincoln.

First came the full text of a major encoded message, which spoke of the painters Poussin and Teniers. This was fascinating. The cipher was unbelievably complex. We were told it had been broken by experts of the French Army Cipher Department, using computers. As I studied the convolutions of the code, I became convinced that this explanation was, to say the least, suspect. I checked with cipher experts of British Intelligence. They agreed with me. ‘The cipher does not present a valid problem for a computer.’ The code was unbreakable. Someone, somewhere, must have the key. (Baigent et al. 2005, 11)

In other words, whoever deciphered the documents must have also possessed the key either by virtue of being the author of the documents and key, or by having been given same.

And then de Sède dropped his second bombshell. A tomb resembling that in Poussin’s famous painting ‘Les Bergeres d’Arcadie’, had been found. He would send details ‘as soon as he had them’. Some days later the photographs arrived and it was clear that our short film on a small local mystery had begun to assume unexpected dimensions. (Baigent et al. 2005, 11)

This item, the Poussin painting, “The Shepherds of Arcadia,” had a strange effect on me at the time that I was reading the story. There was a reproduction of it in the article about the Rennes-le-Château mystery, but it was a poor copy. I was thumbing through an art book on my shelves, trying to find any scholarly commentary, and lo and behold, there was a large, full-page reproduction of it right there. I cut it out of the book and pinned it to the wall over my desk where I could see it all the time and went back to studying the matter at hand.

With the addition of such mysterious developments, Henry Lincoln decided to do more research and make a longer program. The first screening of The Lost Treasure of Jerusalem, which was the result of the first stages of research into the matter, was in February of 1972. Essentially, the conclusion was that Abbé Saunière had discovered the Temple Treasure of the Jews. Supposedly, it had been taken by the Romans and then, when the Visigoths sacked Rome, they took it and it ended up in Rennes-le-Château.

Apparently, the public was consumed with curiosity about this mystery, so a follow-up film was planned with more research. In 1974, The Priest, the Painter and the Devil was screened, and it was an unmitigated hit with viewers. More research was needed and Mr. Lincoln decided that the many complexities of the mystery were too much for one man, so Richard Leigh, a writer with graduate degrees and knowledge of history, philosophy, and esoterica was brought onboard. Richard brought in Michael Baigent, a photojournalist and researcher of Templar history. The three of them began to dig into the problem of Rennes-le-Château in a more thorough way and produced another television special entitled The Shadow of The Templars in 1979. Mr. Lincoln writes:

The work we did on that film at last brought us face to face with the underlying foundations upon which the entire mystery of Rennes-le-Château had been built. But the film could only hint at what we were beginning to discern. Beneath the surface was something more startling, more significant, and more immediately relevant than we could have believed possible when we began our work on the ‘intriguing little mystery’ of what a French priest might have found in a mountain village.

In 1972 I closed my first film with the words, ‘Something extraordinary is waiting to be found … and in the not too distant future, it will be.’ (Baigent et al. 2005, 12)

What Lincoln, Leigh and Baigent claim to have found is the secret that Jesus was a king in a long line of priest-kings, and that he had been married to Mary Magdalene, produced a child, born posthumously (after his crucifixion), and that this child had been spirited away to France to be the progenitor of the kings of the Franks, the Merovingians, and that this Holy/Royal Bloodline is the real secret contained in the mysteries of the Holy Grail stories.

How in the world did a story about a possible hidden treasure found by an obscure priest in a remote corner of rural France transmogrify itself into that?

Good question. It’s a complicated story that you will have to read on your own for all the juicy details, but intimately connected to the “how” of it, and far more important, is the “who says?” The answer: a group calling itself Le Prieuré de Sion, The Priory of Sion, and its purported agent, Pierre Plantard. Messrs. Lincoln, Leigh and Baigent write in the conclusion of Holy Blood, Holy Grail:

We were looking for answers to certain perplexing questions, explanations for certain historical enigmas. In the process we more or less stumbled upon something rather greater than we had initially bargained for. We were led to a startling, controversial, and seemingly preposterous conclusion.

…We were simply endeavouring to ascertain whether or not our conclusion was tenable. An exhaustive consideration of biblical material convinced us that it was. Indeed, we became convinced that our conclusion was not only tenable, but also extremely probable. (Baigent et al. 2005, 441)

Note that they stumbled upon, and were led to this conclusion, and it was, apparently, the idea that the Priory of Sion wanted them to believe and publish. About the latter they say:

If we cannot prove our conclusion, however, we have received abundant evidence — from both their documents and their representatives — that the Prieuré de Sion can. On the basis of their written hints and their personal conversations with us, we are prepared to believe that Sion does possess something — something that does in some way amount to ‘incontrovertible proof’ of the hypothesis we have advanced. (Baigent et al. 2005, 442)

What do they think this proof is that is in the possession of the Priory of Sion? They write:

If our hypothesis were correct, the Holy Grail would have been at least two things simultaneously: On the one hand, it would have been Jesus’ bloodline and descendants — the ‘Sang Raal’, the ‘Real’ or ‘Royal’ blood of which the Templars, created by the Prieuré de Sion were appointed guardians. At the same time the Holy Grail would have been, quite literally, the receptacle, or vessel, that received and contained Jesus’ blood. In other words, it would have been the womb of the Magdalene — and by extension, the Magdalene herself.

…But it may have been something else as well. In a.d. 70, during the great revolt in Judaea, Roman legions under Titus sacked the temple of Jerusalem. The pillaged treasure of the temple is said to have found its way eventually to the Pyrenees; and M. Plantard, in his conversation with us, stated that this treasure was in the hands of the Prieuré de Sion today. But the temple of Jerusalem may have contained more than the treasure plundered by Titus’ centurions. In ancient Judaism religion and politics were inseparable. The Messiah was to be a priest-king whose authority encompassed spiritual and secular domains alike. It is thus likely, indeed probable, that the temple housed official records pertaining to Israel’s royal line — the equivalents of the birth certificates, marriage licenses, and other relevant data concerning any modern royal or aristocratic family. If Jesus was indeed ‘King of the Jews’ the temple is almost certain to have contained copious information relating to him. It may even have contained his body … (Baigent et al. 2005, 443)

There are a few problems with this. If M. Plantard claims that the Priory of Sion holds the treasure of Solomon’s Temple, they must have a pretty empty treasury! And maybe that’s why Plantard has been known to do the “midnight flit” without paying his rent (as has been reported by a number of researchers into his past and background). You see, the Temple of Solomon1 was looted by Antiochus Epiphanes, not Titus. And, of course, this was after the Temple had been sacked by Rameses in 930 bce, and the Babylonians in 586 bce.

As I have written in my series “Who Wrote the Bible?”2 the existence of the original Temple of Solomon is problematical. There is actually no evidence that it even existed — in Israel, that is. Yet, somehow, the scribe Ezra managed to convince Cyrus, King of Persia, of the “chosenness” of his people, thereby garnering support for the return of the Jews to Israel and the “rebuilding of the temple.” I would suggest that this was not a “rebuilding,” but an original building motivated by myths and legends patched together by Ezra, extended in time by endless, fake genealogies designed to deceive. By convincing Cyrus that the Israelites had been guided and chosen by the “One God,” he would naturally think that he would be blessed by Israel’s god if he assisted this project.

According to the Book of Ezra, there was a whole slew of treasure given to the Jews by the Persians to put in their new temple. This was done approximately 516 bce and, supposedly, for the next 481 years the treasure of Solomon’s rebuilt temple just hung out there doing what treasure in a temple is supposed to do. We should note right here that the Ark of the Covenant disappeared from view and discussion between 750 bce and 650 bce, more than a hundred years before Ezra, who would have, if he had been able to do so without being caught out at lying, claimed that it was still present among the treasure.

Over and over again we read in these Rennes-le-Château books a citation from Josephus that Titus sacked the Temple in Jerusalem and made off with the treasure. However, that is not quite accurate, as I have just noted above. Here is the relevant excerpt from Josephus about the loss of the treasure of the Temple:

King Antiochus … got possession of the city by treachery; at which time he spared not so much as those that admitted him into it, on account of the riches that lay in the temple; but, led by his covetous inclination, (for he saw there was in it a great deal of gold, and many ornaments that had been dedicated to it of very great value,) and in order to plunder its wealth, he ventured to break the league he had made. So he left the temple bare, and took away the golden candlesticks, and the golden altar [of incense], and table [of shew-bread], and the altar [of burnt-offering]; and did not abstain from even the veils, which were made of fine linen and scarlet. He also emptied it of its secret treasures, and left nothing at all remaining; and by this means cast the Jews into great lamentation, for he forbade them to offer those daily sacrifices which they used to offer to God, according to the law. [emphasis added] (Josephus 1999, 403—404)

Note that Josephus clearly says that Antiochus “left the Temple bare.” Not only that, but he also “emptied it of its secret treasure, and left nothing at all remaining.” Those are strong words, and nowhere does Josephus indicate that the Temple was ever again replenished in terms of treasure.

The short version of the story is that in the year 175 bce, Antiochus IV, also known as Epiphanes, murdered Seleucus IV and took the throne. In the year 169 bce Antiochus invaded Egypt in an attempt to destroy the Ptolemaic Dynasty. Soon it was rumored back in Palestine that the king had been killed in battle. The news of Antiochus’ death was false, however, and when he returned to Jerusalem, he entered the Temple and stole a great deal of valuable treasure, an act which the pious Jews looked upon as an abomination before God.

The following year (168 bce) Antiochus renewed his campaign against the Egyptians, but he was stopped by the Roman representative Popilius Laenus, and was ordered to leave Egypt and never come back. This so infuriated Antiochus that he came back and took out his frustration on the city of Jerusalem. He tore down the city walls, slaughtered a great many of the Jews, ordered the Jewish Scriptures to be destroyed, and he and his soldiers brought prostitutes into the Temple and there had sex with them in order to defile the Temple. He also issued orders that everyone was to worship the Greek gods, and established the death penalty for anyone who practiced circumcision, or who observed the Sabbath or any of the Jewish religious feasts and sacrifices. The cruelty of Antiochus in enforcing these new laws against the Jews became legendary. The final outrage for the pious Jews of the land came when Antiochus sacked the Temple and erected an altar there to the pagan god Zeus. Then, on December 25, 168 bce, Antiochus offered a pig to Zeus on the altar of Yahweh.

Now, if the treasure was taken by Antiochus in 169 bce, that is 200 years before Titus sacked Jerusalem, and during all of this time, Jerusalem was in an almost constant state of occupation by foreign powers, oppression or revolt, such conditions were definitely not conducive to either assembling or displaying any treasure of significance, much less keeping any! Josephus never mentions any “restoration of the treasure” to the temple. What Antiochus did with it, we can only guess, but the likelihood is that it was spent wildly and wantonly.

Nevertheless, one writer on Rennes-le-Château claims that confirmation of the existence of this treasure comes from the 1952 discovery of the Copper Scroll in Cave 3, Qumran. This turned out to be a list of 64 hiding places in Jerusalem and surrounding districts, where gold, silver, Temple offerings and so forth are said to have been deposited. In modern terms, it amounts to 65 tons of silver and 26 tons of gold.

The experts are arguing over it, but the consensus of opinion is that the style of the document, i.e. dry realism, along with the fact that it is recorded on copper, a valuable metal in its own right which therefore would not have been used to record a fairy tale, all contribute to the idea that it describes a real treasure. Now, just what treasure it was describing is in dispute. Was this the treasure from the Temple at Jerusalem?

Not very likely. In the first place, the scroll was found among the Essene Qumran documents. The Essenes were, according to initial expert assessments, dedicated opponents of the Temple at Jerusalem; so the Essene community would have been a hostile environment for such a list, to say the least, if it were the Temple treasure. Besides that difficulty, it is not likely that the sacking of the Temple was foreseen so that any treasure, if it had existed by this time, could have been hidden. And, of course, hidden treasure around the time of the fall of Jerusalem to Titus contradicts the words of Josephus who has already told us that it was all plundered by Antiochus.3

There are experts who propose that the treasure listed on the Copper scroll belonged to the Essenes themselves, which is hard to understand since they were advocates of poverty, simplicity and were a relatively small community.

So, that is all that can safely be said about the “proof” of the Copper scroll. It is certainly suggestive of some group that had a treasure, but just who or what this group was cannot be determined.

In 35 bce, Herod decided to build a new Temple because, apparently, the old one was pretty run-down and must have been falling apart. It was this temple that was sacked by Titus. It is possible that Herod did some decorating and jazzed things up with a little gold here and there, but it is unlikely that he had the resources to adorn his temple in the manner of the former one. Josephus’ remarks relating to the Roman sacking of the temple of Herod are as follows:

Accordingly, the number of the high priests, from the days of Herod until the day when Titus took the temple and the City, and burnt them, were in all twenty-eight; the time also that belonged to them was a hundred and seven years. (Josephus 1999, 644)

Notice that here, Josephus made no mention of Titus making off with the Treasure of the Temple. Yet, Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln cite a record of this purported carrying off of the treasure by Titus, and everybody who has researched in Rennes-le-Château since then has referred back to this “original research” of Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln, which claims that Titus and the Romans took possession of the treasure of the Jewish Temple. It has even been said that the Arch of Titus, built in 81 ce by the senate at Rome, is proof of this because it has a bas-relief depicting the return of the triumphant General Titus, the priceless seven-branched candlestick carried on the shoulders of Jewish prisoners.

If you look at this bas-relief, you see the giant menorah and an object that can only be a stylized representation of the scroll of the Torah. I have to think that this “proof” that Titus obtained the treasure of the Temple at Jerusalem may fall under the category of artistic symbolism. How else could one express the conquest of the Jews other than depicting their main religious symbols on a bas-relief? Of course, this menorah taken by Titus could certainly have been gold, but it seems clear that the main treasure, the piles of loot that everyone is looking for, actually disappeared with Antiochus, and what he did with it is anybody’s guess. However, such a detail as that doesn’t stop the Rennes-le-Château crowd! The story continues that when the Visigoths sacked Rome, Alaric took the temple treasure of Jerusalem and it ended up in the Languedoc.

The conclusions reached by Lincoln, Leigh and Baigent are very well-presented, even if somewhat carelessly researched, and it is much easier to read them as they originally wrote them than to attempt to summarize all of them, but the main point should be that the whole thing started with Gerard De Sède’s book Le tresor maudit de Rennes, which Henry Lincoln read on his vacation in France. Also keep in mind that most of the source notes in the back of the book refer to the information supplied by the purported Priory of Sion and its agents.

The intrepid threesome was pretty busy. By the time they finish with their investigation, we have not only the treasure of the Temple of Solomon hiding at Rennes, we also have the treasure of the Templars and the treasure of the Cathars; we have all the noble families of the region connected to the Templars as guardians of the Grail; we have the Holy Grail and maybe even the Ark of the Covenant. Heck, all the mysteries of the whole blasted planet are right there in Rennes-le-Château for the enterprising treasure-seeker to discover! And the Pied Piper is the Priory of Sion.

The whole deal about the Priory of Sion boils down to this: their claim is that a secret order, the Priory, predates the Knights Templar and that the Templars were actually created as the military and administrative arm of this other group. Supposedly, the heads of this Prieuré de Sion, Grand Masters as they are called, are nearly all people whose names are famous through history.

Supposedly, even though the Templars were dissolved between 1307 and 1314, the Prieuré was untouched by this tragedy, and continues up to the present day, playing a significant part in contemporary international affairs. And, here’s the clincher: its declared objective is the restoration of the Merovingian dynasty. Why? Well, because they are supposed to be the descendants of Jesus and Mary Magdalene and the proof is in their long hair! (Just joking!)

The Merovingian dynasty issued from the Sicambrians, a tribe of the Germanic people collectively known as the Franks. Between the fifth and seventh centuries the Merovingians ruled large parts of what are now France and Germany. The period of their ascendancy coincides with the period of King Arthur — a period that constitutes the setting for the romances of the Holy Grail. It is probably the most impenetrable period of what are now called the Dark Ages. But the Dark Ages, we discovered, had not been truly dark. On the contrary, it quickly became apparent to us that someone had deliberately obscured them. To the extent that the Roman Church exercised a veritable monopoly on learning, and especially on writing, the records that survived represent certain vested interests. Almost everything else has been lost — or censored. (Baigent et al. 2005, 269)

Lincoln, Leigh and Baigent (LL&B) say that there are enigmas surrounding the origins of the Merovingians because they did not find any abrupt transition or usurpation — that they seemed already to rule over the Franks; that they were duly-acknowledged kings. Not only that, it seems that there was something special about the one who gave the name to the dynasty, Mérovée/Merovech/Meroveus. They state that he was a semi-supernatural figure.

LL&B say that according to both the leading Frankish chronicler and subsequent tradition, Meroveus was born of two fathers. When already pregnant by her husband, King Clodio, Mérovée’s mother supposedly went swimming in the ocean. In the water she is said to have been seduced or raped by a “Quinotaur.” What a Quinotaur is, we have no clue. Nevertheless, this creature impregnated her a second time and when Mérovée was born, he had a dual bloodline.

Yes, it is true that very often, behind a facade of legend lays a truth. And here LL&B suggest that the seed of truth behind this one is that there was intermarriage of some sort, a pedigree transmitted through the mother, as in Judaism, for instance. The idea is bruited that this might indicate an alliance with someone from “beyond the sea.”

The first thing we want to look at is the tradition of the origins of the Merovingians. The History of the Franks, by their chronicler, Gregory of Tours, is, in the words of translator Lewis Thorpe, “spattered with blood and festers with pus, it re-echoes with the animal screams of men and women being tortured unto death: yet Gregory never once questions this effective method of exacting confession, implicating confederates, or simply satisfying the bloodlust of Queens and Kings. … Time and time again, usually at the conclusion of some most serious passage, of some stomach-turning description, he adds an amusing comment, often a sly quip at himself” (Gregory 1974, 15).

I can assure you myself that this is not a book for the highly-imaginative or the squeamish. It’s a great read, however, and what may happen to you by the time you finish reading it is that you will think: good riddance! What person in their right mind would want those lunatics back in power? There is definitely something about the Merovingian blood — it is tainted with madness.

According to Ian Wood, author of The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450-751 a.d., the Franks were the last of the invaders of Gaul and the most successful. In spite of this, their origins are shrouded in mist. Clovis’ father, Childeric I, is the first of the dynasty who is well attested by legitimate sources, and, before him, most of the evidence for a royal dynasty is legend. The Franks were reasonably well known to the Roman emperors in the fourth century; but even they couldn’t make up their minds as to whom, exactly, they were. What Gregory of Tours says in book II.9 of his History of the Franks is:

Many people do not even know the name of the first king of the Franks. The Historia of Sulpicius Alexander [which has been lost, by the way] gives many details about them, while Valentinus does not name their first King but says that they were ruled by war-leaders. (Gregory 1974, 120)

Gregory then quotes directly from the Historia (and, further on, other historical records):

“At that time the Franks invaded the Roman province of Germania under their leaders Genobaud, Marcomer and Sunno … A few days later there was a short parley with Marcomer and Sunno, the royal leaders [whether this meant kings or merely exercising a kingly function is uncertain] of the Franks. … That same year Arbogast [general in the western Roman Empire], urged on by tribal hatred, went in search of Sunno and Marcomer, the kinglets of the Franks. … He … crossed the River Rhine and laid waste the land nearest to the bank, where the Bructeri lived, and the region occupied by the Chamavi. He did this without meeting any opposition, except that a few Amsivarii and Chatti showed themselves on the far-distant ridges of the hills, with Marcomer as their war-leader.”

A few pages further on, having given up all talk of ‘duces’ and ‘regales’, he states clearly that the Franks had a king, but he forgets to tell us what his name was.

“The next thing which happened was that the tyrant Eugenius led a military expedition as far as the frontier marked by the Rhine. He renewed the old traditional treaties with the kings of the Alamanni and the Franks, and he paraded his army, which was immense for that time, before their savage tribesmen.” (Gregory 1974, 120—123)

Gregory then quips, “So much for the information that this chronicler Sulpicius Alexander has to give us about the Franks,” and proceeds to the account of Renatus Profuturs Frigeridus, who describes the Goths’ capture and destruction of Rome:

“Meanwhile Goar had gone over to the Romans, and Respendial, the King of the Alani, therefore withdrew his forces from the Rhine. The Vandals were hard-pressed in their war against the Franks, their King Godigisel was killed and about twenty thousand of their front-line troops had been slaughtered, so that, if the army of the Alani had not come to their rescue in time, the entire nation of Vandals would have been wiped out.”

It is an extraordinary thing that, although he tells us about the kings of these various peoples, including the Franks, when he describes how Constantine, who had become a tyrant, summoned his son Constans to come from Spain to meet him, he goes on:

“ …They sent Edobech to contain the people of Germania and they themselves set out for Gaul, with the Franks, the Alamanni and a whole band of soldiery … Constantine had been beleaguered for about four months when messengers arrive all of a sudden from northern Gaul to announce that Jovinus had assumed the rank of Emperor and was about to attack the besieging forces with the Burgundes, the Alamanni, the Franks, the Alani and a large army. … “

After a few more sentences, Frigeridus goes on:

“ …The city of Trier was sacked and burnt by the Franks in a second attack.”

He notes that Asterius was made a patrician by a patent signed by the Emperor and then he continues:

“At this time Castinus, Master of the Imperial Household, was sent to Gaul, as a campaign had been begun against the Franks.”

That concludes what these two historians have to say about the Franks. (Gregory 1974, 123—124)

In other words, several mentions of the Franks and the various campaigns fought against them, but not much else. Gregory then moves on to book VII of the work of Orosius, who states that, “Stilicho took command of an army, crushed the Franks, crossed the Rhine, made his way across Gaul and came finally to the Pyrenees.” Gregory comments: “The historians whose works we still have give us all this information about the Franks, but they never record the names of their kings” (Gregory 1974, 124).

It is commonly said that the Franks came originally from Pannonia [the region of present-day western Hungary] and first colonized the banks of the Rhine. Then they crossed the river, marched through Thuringia, and set up in each country district and each city longhaired kings chosen from the foremost and most noble family of their race. … We read in the consular lists that Theudemer, King of the Franks, son of Richemer, and his mother Ascyla, were executed with the sword. They also say that Clodio, a man of high birth and marked ability among his people, was King of the Franks and that he lived in the castle of Duisburg in Thuringian territory. … Some say that Merovech, the father of Childeric, was descended from Clodio.

This particular race of people seems always to have followed idolatrous practices. … They fashioned idols for themselves out of the creatures of the woodlands and the waters, out of birds and beasts: these they worshipped … and to these they made their sacrifices.

Childeric, King of the Franks, whose private life was one long debauch, began to seduce the daughters of his subjects. They were so incensed about this that they forced him to give up his throne. He discovered that they intended to assassinate him and he fled to Thuringia. He left behind a close friend of his who was able to soothe the minds of his angry subjects with his honeyed words.

Childeric entrusted to him a token, which should indicate when he might return to his homeland. They broke a gold coin into two equal halves. Childeric took one half with him and the friend kept the other half. “When I send my half to you,” said his friend, “and the two halves placed together make a complete coin, you will know that you may return home safe and sound.”

Childeric then set out for Thuringia and took refuge with King Bisinus and his wife Basina. [After eight years] Childeric’s faithful friend succeeded in pacifying them secretly and he sent messengers to the exile with the half of the broken coin … By this token Childeric knew for sure that the Franks wanted him back, indeed that they were clamouring for him to return.

…Now that Bisinus and Childeric were both kings, Queen Basina … deserted her husband and joined Childeric. He questioned her closely as to why she had come from far away to be with him, and she is said to have answered: “I know that you are a strong man and I recognize ability when I see it. I have therefore come to live with you. You can be sure that if I knew anyone else, even far across the sea, who was more capable than you, I should have sought him out and gone to live with him instead.” This pleased Childeric very much and he married her. She became pregnant and bore a son whom she called Clovis.” (Gregory 1974, 125—129)

Nevertheless, despite the uncertainty in the historical record, the myths and legends that have been shaped around them may hold some clues. On the other hand, they may be more red herrings. Historian Ian Wood writes:

Writing in the mid-seventh century, probably in Burgundy, the chronicler known as Fredegar recorded the tradition that Priam [king of Troy] was the first king of the Franks. Friga succeeded him. The people then split up, some remaining in Macedonia, others following Friga to the Danube and the Ocean. There a further division took place. Some stayed and, ruled by Torcoth, they became known as Turks, while others followed Francio to the Rhine, where they became known as Franks. Thereafter, under the leadership of military leaders, duces, they remained undefeated.

Another version of this Trojan origin legend was written down in 727 by the [anonymous] author of the Liber Historiae Francorum. According to him or her, after the fall of Troy Priam and Antenor led twelve thousand men to the river Tanais, and then to the Maeotic swamps. From there they moved to Pannonia, where they built a city called Sicambria. Meanwhile the emperor Valentinian offered remission of tribute for ten years to any people who could drive the Alans out of the Maeotic swamps. This the Trojans did, and as a result they were called Franci, which the author thought was the Attic for ‘fierce’. When the ten years were over the Romans tried to reimpose tribute on the Franks, but the latter killed the tax collectors. As a result Valentinian sent troops against them, but they fought back. In the battle Priam was killed. The Franks left Sicambria, and moved to the Rhine. There Sunno, Antenor’s son, died, and on the recommendation of Priam’s son, Marchomir, the Franks elected Faramund as their rex crinitus, or long-haired king.

…Common to both [these stories] are Trojan and migration traditions. The Trojan story is first recorded in Fredegar, and it seems to have had some vogue in seventh and eighth century Francia, where other Trojan legends were preserved. …

Gregory of Tours seems not to have known about the Trojan origin of the Franks, but he did know an undeveloped version of their migration legend. He thought that the Franks came from Pannonia, and that they crossed the Rhine, and marched through Thuringia … [which makes no sense, geographically.] The peculiar geography involved has disturbed many, who have wanted to emend Thuringia to Tongres, and emendation already made by a scribe of one manuscript of Gregory’s Histories. … As for the fuller versions of the migration, as preserved in Fredegar’s Chronicle and in the Liber Historiae Francorum, they may have been written in response to the origin legends of the Goths, which had been developed by Cassiodorus. In fact there is no reason to believe that the Franks were involved in any long-distance migration: archaeology and history suggest that they originated in the lands immediately to the east of the Rhine.…

The Franks first appear in historical sources relating to the barbarian invasions of the third century. There they are already established in the region of the lower Rhine. … It is generally thought that they were a new people only in name, and that they were made up of tribes such as the Amsivarii, Chattuarii and Chatti, who are mentioned in earlier sources, but rarely, if at all, in later ones. At the end of the century the Franks appear in the Latin panygyrics as a maritime people, causing trouble in the Channel. As such, they were the precursors of the Saxons, who came to be more and more associated with attacks on the coasts of northern Gaul and Britain. By the late fourth century, in fact, the Saxons were said to have been involved in raids, which had previously been ascribed to the Franks.

…In the fourth century the Franks were also in close contact with the Romans, as allies and as recruits for the imperial forces. … One or two even gained the consulship.

…Sulpicius Alexander recorded conflict in 389 between Arbogast [mentioned above by Gregory], a Frank who held high military office in the empire, and two regales, or petty kings, of the Franks, Sunno and Marcomer, and he revealed that the latter was the war leader of the Amsivarii and the Chatti.

The History of Frigeridus covered events of a slightly later period. From it Gregory learnt about the activities of the Franks in the first decades of the fifth century, including their involvement in the civil wars, which followed the usurpation by Constantine III. [emphasis added] (Wood 1994, 33—36)

The fact is, nobody really knows who the Franks were or where they came from. It has been conjectured that they were barbarian tribes from the East that met and mingled with the Frisians. The areas that the Frisians originate from (from what is now the northwestern Netherlands, across northwestern Germany, and to the border of Denmark) was settled as early as 3500 bce. There were comings and goings of additional peoples as the archaeological records show, and it seems to be possible to systematically track who was who and who went where by their pottery and other artifacts.

During the period 400—200 bce, the archaeology shows that a group with its own identity developed from the Weser-Ems and Drenthe settlers. This group was called the Proto-Frisian culture by archaeologists. These Proto-Frisians lived in an area between modern Leiden and Delfzijl. Over the coming centuries, this group of Proto-Frisians expanded to fill the whole of the habitable region.

The coming of the Romans to the southern Netherlands in 12 bce prevented the Frisians from expanding their territory to the south of the Amstel and the Rhine. Around the year 150 bce, the Frisians also lost the Groningen salt-marshes to the Chatti who had advanced from East Friesland.

A list of place-names compiled in Alexandria by geographer Claudius Ptolameus (Ptolemy) c.150 ce was turned into maps by Europeans in the fifteenth century. These maps also supply the names of those tribes dwelling along the North Sea coastal regions. The evidence indicates that Saxons lived in southwest Jutland (Ribe and southwards), North Friesland and Ditmarschen — as far as the Elbe. Between the Elbe and the Weser lived the “greater” Chatti, while the “lesser” Chatti lived in East Friesland. The description given by Ptolemy agrees with what has been reconstructed from the archaeological finds.

Depopulation of the Frisian salt-marshes occurred between 250 and 400 ce due to the rising sea levels and flooding and, undoubtedly, the cometary destruction of Europe. This resulted in an almost total depopulation of the Frisians in North Holland. This depopulation not only affected Frisian areas. In the Baltic and northern European coastal regions, the population retreated to the higher areas inland during the second century ce. Where the Frisians went still cannot be stated with certainty. It is thought that some of them migrated to Flanders in the third century, and from there crossed over to Kent in England. Frisian Tritzumer pottery has been found in both regions. Kerst Huisman has theorized that the Frisians of the flooded salt-marshes migrated to East Friesland and there, together with the Chatti, formed the tribe known as the Franks. There came into being, at any rate, a new tribe bearing the name of the Franks about the year 300 ce.

The presence of the tribe known as the Chatti has been mentioned by several ancient sources. What I find to be of great interest is that the Hittites were also known as the Chatti, and Abraham, the patriarch of the Jews, was theorized by many researchers to have been a Hittite.4 That is to say, an Aryan. I began to wonder if the so-called pejorative characteristics that were historically assigned to Jews might actually be a cultural inheritance of a particular Aryan mixture? It is, after all, the “Salic Law,” from the Salian Franks, that deprived women of the rights of inheritance and the position of women was seriously degraded with the impostion of monotheism through Judaism.

Gregory could not understand how the Franks of the late fourth and early fifth centuries could be related to those led by the Merovingians in the late fifth and sixth centuries. What distressed him the most was the failure to talk about the royal lines, the kings (if Gregory had read Ammianus Marcellinus, as Wood notes, he would have known about a Frankish king called Mallobaudes). Gregory tried to make the semi-legendary Faramund (son of Marcomer), the father of Chlodio. This would have served to unite the Trojan and Merovingian families, based on the Trojan origin stories mentioning Faramund. Fredegar, on the other hand, clearly stated the Trojan origin and then, after the death of Francio, just said that they were ruled by duces, or petty kings. This was his explanation for the lack of a royal family that was so upsetting to Gregory.

Fredegar also provided an account of Merovech’s birth, which may cast light both on the origins of the Merovingians and also on the strangeness of the account by Gregory.

According to Fredegar, Merovech was conceived when Chlodio’s wife went swimming, and encountered a Quinotaur. Although is not explicitly stated that this sea-monster was the father of the eponymous founder of the Merovingian dynasty, that is clearly the impression which Fredegar intended to give. The royal dynasty, thus, was thought to have had a supernatural origin. Gregory may well have known of these claims, and have thought of them as pagan. Whereas Fredegar relates the tale of the encounter with the Quinotaur, in the corresponding section of his Histories the bishop of Tours has an outburst against idolatry.

The origin legend of the Merovingians as recorded by Fredegar is important not only for its suggestion that the family claimed to be descended from a supernatural ancestor, but also for the implications it has for the rise of the dynasty. (Wood 1994, 37)

It seems that we have a serious problem here: Chlodio was recorded by Sidonius Apollinaris as having lost a battle at the vicus Helena in Artois — an event that took place c. 448 ce. Merovech would then have to belong to the second half of the fifth century if he was Chlodio’s son. This suggests that the emergence of the family as a power should also be dated to this same period. At the same time, Faramund, who is supposed to have been Chlodio’s father, is not attested to in any early source. In other words, the Merovingians were not a significant dynasty at all before the mid-fifth century. Their origins were separate and later than those of their people.

In this respect, we can see that it is possible that Thuringia may have truly been more significant to the family of Meroveus than to the origins of the Franks themselves. If we consider the fact that Merovech’s son, Childeric, had close ties to Thuringia (remember the story of Basina from Gregory), it is altogether possible that the Merovingians originated in the east of Frankish territory. In other words, the Trojan origin story of the Franks seems to belong to the people themselves, and not the family of Merovech. The family’s own stories of its origins are peculiarly supernatural and pagan and different from the Franks themselves.

I have before me a book entitled The Plantagenet Chronicles, which is a compilation of the many contemporary documents written by various medieval chroniclers regarding the Angevin dynasty. Most of these writers were monks living in monasteries or attached to great cathedrals. They were, for the most part, members of well-established institutions who took great pride in their traditions and whose agenda was to protect their own properties and independence within the feudal system. These historians didn’t try to produce rational and detached analyses. Their intent was to demonstrate the power of God via the presence and activity of the Holy Mother Church. If they could make an example out of a saint or a king, they did so shamelessly. Nevertheless, even though they were making morality lessons out of their material, for the most part, they were still reporting facts.

In reading The Plantagenet Chronicles, we find that the Counts of Anjou were said to have come from the Devil. Gerald of Wales refers to the legend that they were descended from the daughter of Satan, a woman named Melusine, who was the wife of an early Angevin count. The problem is, this was only promulgated in much later times, probably by Richard the Lionhearted who was quoted as saying: “What wonder if we lack the natural affections of mankind — we come from the Devil and must needs go back to the Devil.”

My curiosity is piqued by this story of the origins of the Angevins, which is so similar to the story about the Merovingians. Has this story been borrowed? Or is it common to certain peoples because of some relationship to strange beings?

As to whether it applied to either group is debatable. Count Fulk Rechin de Anjou (1068—1109), admitted that he knew nothing of the first three of his line: Ingelgar (the first Count of Anjou), Fulk the Red, and Fulk the Good (941—960). Nevertheless, the twelfth century seems to have been a great time of mythmaking when many noble houses invented pedigrees in order to give themselves legendary ancestors.

In any event, because of this, Mérovée was supposed to be a supernatural being and “the Merovingian dynasty was mantled in an aura of mystery and magic.”

According to tradition Merovingian monarchs were occult adepts, initiates in arcane sciences, and practitioners of esoteric arts — worthy rivals of Merlin … They were often called ‘the sorcerer kings’ or ‘thaumaturge-kings’. By virtue of some miraculous property in their blood they could allegedly heal by the laying on of hands; and according to one account the tassels at the fringes of their robes were deemed to possess miraculous curative powers. They were said to be capable of clairvoyant or telepathic communication with beasts and with the natural world around them and to wear a powerful magical necklace. They were said to possess an arcane spell that protected them and granted them phenomenal longevity — which history, incidentally, does not seem to confirm. And they all supposedly bore a distinctive birthmark, which distinguished them from all other men, which rendered them immediately identifiable, and which attested to their semi-divine or sacred blood. This birthmark reputedly took the form of a red cross, either over the heart — a curious anticipation of the Templar blazon — or between the shoulder blades.

The Merovingians were also frequently called ‘the longhaired kings’. Like Samson in the Old Testament, they were loath to cut their hair. Like Samson’s, their hair supposedly contained their vertu — the essence and secret of their power. Whatever the basis for this belief in the puissance of the Merovingians’ hair, it seems to have been taken quite seriously, and as late as a.d. 754. When Childeric III was deposed in that year and imprisoned, his hair was ritually shorn at the Pope’s express command.

…the Merovingians were not regarded as kings in the modern sense of that word. They were regarded as priest-kings — embodiments of the divine … And they seem to have engaged in ritual practices that partook, if anything, more of priesthood than of kingship. Skulls found of Merovingian monarchs, for example, bear what appears to be a ritual incision or hole in the crown. Similar incision can be found in the skulls of high priests of early Tibetan Buddhism …

In 1653, an important Merovingian tomb was found in the Ardennes — the tomb of king Childeric I, son of Mérovée and father of Clovis, most famous and influential of all Merovingian rulers. The tomb contained arms, treasure, and regalia such as one would expect to find in a royal tomb. It also contained items less characteristic of kingship than of magic, sorcery, and divination — a severed horse’s head, for instance, a bull’s head made of gold, and a crystal ball.

One of the most sacred of Merovingian symbols was the bee; and King Childeric’s tomb contained no less than three hundred miniature bees made of solid gold. (Baigent et al. 2005, 270—272)

The remark is made after this that Napoleon not only had the miniature golden bees affixed to his coronation robes, but that he commissioned a genealogy report by someone named Abbé Pinchón, the ostensible reason being to determine if the Merovingian bloodline had survived the fall of the dynasty. Then we get the clincher for this one: much of the so-called Prieuré documents are genealogies based on those compiled at Napoleon’s request!

Now, whom do we have to thank for all of this startling information? Well, the Priory of Sion, of course. If we look to the back of Holy Blood, Holy Grail where the reference notes are assembled, we find that the whole story is based on “a comprehensive body of material … contained in L’Or de Rennes pour UN Napoleon,” which is handily made available by one of Pierre Plantard’s close associates, Philippe de Cherisey.

The enormous volume of literature that has resulted from the story of Bérenger Saunière suggests to me that the mystery of Rennes-le-Château is a staging area for a subject that is of great importance to someone. The ideas reek with the stench of having been planted and systematically released to tease and entice researchers and treasure hunters around the world. Part of the aura of the material rests on the fact that it is supposed to originate with highly privileged sources. The subjects that are all connected together in this morass of disinformation include the Cathars, the Templars, the Merovingian kings, the Rosicrucians, the Masons, the Nazis and, of course, the royal line of Jesus Christ, but, all of this may be a series of red herrings.

The majority of the so-called documentation of the events of Rennes-le-Château and the Priory of Sion nearly always turns out to be of dubious, if not untraceable authorship. Names of the dead are regularly borrowed for attribution, and when investigations ensue, inevitably prove to be false. Addresses of significance turn out to not even exist. Documents seem to appear and disappear within the Bibliotheque Nationale, appearing first in one form, then another.

The whole problem seems to stem from the fact that LL&B accepted the claims and documents of the Priory of Sion mainly due to a series of numerous strange coincidences and anomalous findings during the course of their research. Whoever was behind these events picked their publicists well because these events were experienced by people with considerable ability to influence the thinking of large numbers of people. And they did. They worked carefully and put their findings together clearly and eloquently despite a curious, blinded optimism that what they were experiencing had to be the truth because, of course, they were experiencing it; and it clearly was not being faked because there simply wasn’t anybody who could fake all the confirmations and synchronicities they encountered. It would have been a conspiracy of such vast proportions, over such long periods of time, that such was incomprehensible.

Well, without considering the Control System and space/time manipulation capabilities of fourth density beings, it is incomprehensible. We have to remember something the Cassiopaeans said here:

Beware of disinformation. It diverts your attention away from reality thus leaving you open to capture and conquest and even possible destruction. … Disinformation comes from seemingly reliable sources. It is extremely important for you to not gather false knowledge, as it is more damaging than no knowledge at all. Remember knowledge protects, ignorance endangers. Same forces spreading disinformation: Brotherhood/ Consortium/ Illuminati/ New World Order/ “Antichrist”/ Lizards. … It is no trouble at all for aforementioned forces to give seemingly individualized attention to anybody.

Notice the initial remark about disinformation diverting our attention away from reality, leaving us open to capture, conquest and even possible destruction.

Nevertheless, the idea of a royal bloodline of Christ created not only a sensation, but also a veritable industry of books. We are here in the presence of mythology in the making and it is awesome to witness. Most people never noticed that LL&B repeatedly urged caution about accepting the Priory of Sion as valid and its documents as unimpeachable, even if they, themselves, tended to believe. At the end of their second book The Messianic Legacy, they wrote:

We had endeavoured to learn more about the Prieuré de Sion today. We had sought to ascertain something definitive about its membership, its power and resources, its specific objectives. We had hoped at some point to reach the centre of the labyrinth, not necessarily to slay whatever Minotaur lurked there, but at least to confront it. At the same time, however, we could not escape the rueful recognition that we were often being outmaneuvered by individuals who contrived, with great subtlety and skill, to remain consistently one step ahead of us.

…The Prieuré de Sion is particularly well equipped to put itself forward as a vehicle for chivalric ideals. It is also particularly well equipped to put itself forward as something more. Unlike many other social, political and religious institutions, the Prieuré, as we noted … has considerable psychological sophistication. It understands the depth and magnitude of humanity’s internal needs. It understands how to manipulate archetypes — archetypal images and themes — in such a way as to invest them with maximum appeal.

One of the most resonant of archetypal symbols, for example, is that of the roi perdu, or lost king — the supernaturally aided monarch who, having completed his task on earth, does not quite die, but retires into some other dimension where he bides his time until the need of his people dictates his return. English-speaking readers are familiar with this archetype through King Arthur. In Wales, Owen Glendower conforms to the same pattern, as does Friedrich Barbarossa in Germany. The roi perdu who figures most prominently in the Prieuré de Sion’s mythos is Dagobert II, the last effective Merovingian monarch. Dagobert is presented by the Prieuré in such a fashion that his image becomes fused in people’s minds with that of the supreme lost king, Jesus himself. On a psychologically symbolic level, quite independent of any question of a blood descent, Dagobert becomes an extension of Jesus. With this psychological association established, even if unconsciously, the idea of a literal and historical blood descent becomes that much easier to propagate. It is by just such techniques that the mystery attached to Rennes-le-Château has been invested with such magnetic attraction, not only to us as authors, but to our readers as well.

The Prieuré also understands the intimate relationship between trust and power. It understands the potency of the religious impulse and knows that this impulse, if activated and channeled, is potentially as puissant a force as, say, money — so puissant, indeed, as to represent perhaps an alternative principle of power. Finally, the Prieuré knows how to sell itself, knows how to purvey an image of itself that accords with its own objectives. As we said before, it is able to orchestrate and to regulate outsider’s perceptions of itself as an archetypal cabal, if not the supreme archetypal cabal. Whatever the ultimate authenticity of its pedigree, it can convey the impression of being what it wishes people to think it is, because it understands the dynamics whereby such impressions are conveyed.

But psychological sophistication and an ability to ‘market’ itself are not the only points the Prieuré de Sion has in its favour. In 1979, M. Plantard had said to us, quite categorically, that the Prieuré was in possession of the treasure of the Temple of Jerusalem, plundered by the Romans during the revolt of AD 66 and subsequently carried to the south of France, in the vicinity of Rennes-le-Château. The treasure, M. Plantard stated, would be returned to Israel “when the time is right.” If the Prieuré does indeed possess the treasure of the Temple, and could produce it today, the implications are staggering. … It would be fraught with contemporary religious and political repercussions. What, for example, would be the implications for modern Israel, as well as for both Judaism and Christianity, if — on the basis of records or other evidence issuing from the Temple of Jerusalem — Jesus stood revealed as the Messiah? Not the Messiah of later Christian tradition, but the Messiah expected by the people of Palestine two thousand years ago — the man, that is, who was their nation’s rightful king, who married, sired children and perhaps did not die on the Cross at all. Would it not rock the foundations of two of the world’s major religions, and possibly the foundations of Islam as well? Would it not, at a single stroke, eradicate the theological differences between Judaism and Christianity, and at least some of the antipathy of Islam?

In any case, and quite apart from the treasure of the Temple, the Prieuré de Sion can promulgate a claim, which would enjoy considerable currency even in today’s world. On behalf of the families it represents, it can establish a dynastic succession extending back to the Old Testament House of David. It can establish, quite definitively and to the satisfaction of the most fastidious genealogical inquiry, that the Merovingian Dynasty was the Davidic line — and was formally recognised as being so by the Carolingians who supplanted them, by other monarchs and by the Roman church of the period. Aided by the techniques of modern public relations, modern advertising and modern political packaging, the Prieuré could thus present to the modern world a figure who, by the strictest scriptural definition of the term, could claim to be a biblical Messiah. It may seem preposterous. But it is no more preposterous, surely, than the conviction of tens of thousands of Americans who are prepared to be ‘raptured’ upwards from their cars at various points on the freeway between Pasadena and Los Angeles.

This does not mean, of course, that we expect an imminent press conference and the media circus that would follow. … The Prieuré de Sion and/or the Merovingian bloodline could never simply unmask themselves, divulge their identity and rely on popular fervour to do the rest. There would be too many skeptics. There would be too many people who were simply not interested. Even among those prepared to acknowledge the legitimacy of the Merovingian descent, there would be too many objectors — too many people who, whatever their religious affiliations, would have no greater desire to be ruled by a Messiah than by anyone else. And there would be too many people already in power, or jockeying for it, who would be hardly disposed to welcome a new challenge on the scene. …

For all these reasons, then, a pedigree cannot be used as a steppingstone to power. Rather, it is a trump card which can be played only to consolidate power once power has already been obtained. …

…Indeed, we are wary of the Prieuré de Sion. … the fact remains that any concentration of power in the hands of a small group of individuals- especially a group of individuals who function in secret — is potentially dangerous. …

And yet our age appears determined to embrace one or another form of Messianic myth in order to obtain a sense of meaning. … We question whether anyone other than the special effects department of a Hollywood studio can provide a Messiah of the sort that has come to be erroneously expected. [emphasis added] (Baigent et al. 1986, 365, 369—372, 374—375)

Well, let me suggest someone else who could provide a messiah that will literally knock the socks off the peoples of the world: denizens of hyperdimensional realities, “aliens.” From following this Priory of Sion phenomenon, it looks exactly like this is the groundwork for just such a coup. How about a little One World Religion with that New World Order? Will that be “to go?”

This small sample of details seem like strong evidence for a conspiracy of multinational individuals and groups seeking global domination, but if we consider the Hermetic maxim, “as above, so below,” we have to see that all these events and movements in our world express a more inclusive reality — that of a fourth density Control System seeking hegemony; playing the cards over centuries, melding small groups into larger and larger groups with ever greater expansion and renewal in the image of fire and light.

The new Universalism holds that mankind’s gnosis of a universal God perceived or known as the Fire or Light is central to all religions and civilizations and explains their growth and decay. (Haggar 1991)

We are at the turning point where nations all over the world are discussing political union as part of a single, universal, world-society. And it is religion that is seen as the glue to put it all together. The only problem we have when contemplating this is: who is on first?5

There are many who believe the old lie that “the boundaries that focus and protect each ‘world’ can only be traversed by beings who are psychically and morally pure.” They further promulgate the idea that “The origins of meddlers are local and terrestrial. More subhuman than Human. Atavistic. Who would propagate the conceit that they were from elsewhere, possessing great powers, and worth fearing: a well-worn bluff and ploy.” This view is promoted in Nicholas Hagger’s book The Fire and the Stones, where we find the following:

The spreading of the Fire through religions [is] the motive force which explains the genesis of civilisations. … Can there be a widespread acceptance of the rediscovery of the lost knowledge of the Fire? … Truth is now being revealed more widely than in recent years. The esoteric is becoming exoteric, and there are signs that what has hitherto been hidden among coteries is now being made more widely available to those of “the masses” who are prepared to seek. … There is evidence (largely gleaned from New Age conferences) that in our time the fire is burning in the consciousness of ordinary people. … The experience of the Fire will become increasingly available to all mankind, as it is always widespread during a civilisation’s growth.

A movement to remysticise Christendom, and other religions, is the next stage in this widening of metaphysical consciousness, and it seems that our time will see a Metaphysical Revolution. … The deepening and widening of the European Community into an integrated conglomerate can be expected to be accompanied by a revival of the metaphysical vision.

…We have seen that all our dead civilisations have died into larger groupings; can it be that those larger groupings will themselves die into one overall larger grouping, one worldwide (albeit American-created) civilisation. … All the various cultures and civilisations spring from one source and flow into one civilisation, perhaps in our time. Is this the end of the vision of the Fire — the vision of God — in history: to unify all the world’s civilisations into one?

If an American-led worldwide civilisation takes place in the 21st century, its renewal of growth will be Fire-led. In other words, its growth will be created, unified and sustained by one worldwide Fire (its Central Idea) that will be transmitted to the world’s masses through one religion. … It would use the revolution in satellite technology and world communications to promulgate its message.

…The “alternative” New Age movement of coteries has been inspired by the growing American Fire. It has also been inspired by the vision of the 1776 Illuminati, the heresy that encourages a drawing together of all world religions. … The New Age movement is both the successor to American New Thought and the forerunner of a coming Universalism … The New Age movement is full of people who have been illumined or who are on the verge of illumination. They are in New Age groups rather than within the Christian fold because they have (perhaps prematurely) seceded from a tradition they regard as having been enfeebled by three and a half centuries of Humanism and materialism and by the secularization of the traditional Christian vision of the 14th century mystics, whom they admire. … It is as if the New Age groups are groping towards the idea of an American-led worldwide religion. In fact, from the point of view of the coming American-led worldwide civilisation, the New Age groups have been doing excellent work in preparing for the worldwide culture ahead.

…Out of their efforts may grow a worldwide religion, which will unify and dominate the American-led worldwide civilisation of the 21st century as early Christianity unified and dominated the new Roman Christian and Byzantine Empires. Just as Christianity absorbed elements from the other metaphysical systems — the Druid Yesu, the Eleusinian grain, the Roman Isis (who became the Virgin Mary) and so on — so a new American-led Universalist religion of the Fire, adopted from Europe’s syncretism, may absorb … Christianity, but blend all systems, devise new forms … combine practices … [emphasis added] (Haggar 1991)

Thus we find a completely different perspective; one in which the Illuminati, which the author has connected to world-controlling banking interests that finance wars and revolutions, are the good guys because, in the end, what is being evolved is a universal religion and government. He has charted what he calls “The vision of god in twenty-five civilisations,” which he says is a “Grand Unified Theory of World History and Religion.” He defines 61 stages of civilization and sees, essentially, the lies propagated in the name of religion as acceptable if they produce “civilizational” results.

In my own studies, which seem to be more in-depth than Mr. Haggar’s, I have come to different conclusions for the very reason that such stages always end in the subsuming of one or more cultures into another, and this is almost inevitably linked to genocide.6 But, Mr. Haggar simply glosses over that fact in his drive to present the end result as a positive outcome. I wonder if he is aware that the ultimate subsumation could be the force behind his image of “Fire.” Experience — through millennia — has shown us, as LL&B write above: “The fact remains that any concentration of power in the hands of a small group of individuals- especially a group of individuals who function in secret — is potentially dangerous.” And we are again reminded of what the Cassiopaeans have said in regard to this:

A: Here is something for you to digest: Why is it that your scientists have overlooked the obvious when they insist that alien beings cannot travel to earth from a distant system???

Q: And what is this obvious thing?

A: Even if speed-of-light travel, or “faster,” were not possible, and it is, of course, there is no reason why an alien race could not construct a space “ark,” living for many generations on it. They could travel great distances through time and space, looking for a suitable world for conquest. Upon finding such, they could then install this ark in a distant orbit, build bases upon various solid planes in that solar system, and proceed to patiently manipulate the chosen civilizations to develop a suitable technological infrastructure. And then, after the instituting of a long, slow, and grand mind-programming project, simply step in and take it over once the situation was suitable. …

Q: (L) Well, since there is so many of us here, why don’t they just move in and take over?

A: That is their intention. That has been their intention for quite some time. They have been traveling back and forth through time as you know it, to set things up so that they can absorb a maximum amount of negative energy with the transference from third level to fourth level that this planet is going to experience, in the hopes that they can overtake you on the fourth level and thereby accomplish several things. 1: retaining their race as a viable species; 2: increasing their numbers; 3: increasing their power; 4: expanding their race throughout the realm of fourth density. To do all of this they have been interfering with events for what you would measure on your calendar as approximately 74 thousand years. And they have been doing so in a completely still state of space-time traveling backward and forward at will during this work. …

Q: Now, from putting the information about religions together throughout the centuries, I am coming to a rather difficult realization that the whole monotheist idea, which is obviously the basic concept of the ‘sons of the law of One,’ is the most clever and devious and cunning means of control I have ever encountered in my life. No matter where it comes from, the religionists say “we have the one god, we are his agents, you pay us your money, and we’ll tell him to be nice to you in the next world!”

A: Clever if one is deceived. Silly truffle if one is not.

Q: Well, I know! But, uncovering this deception, this lie that the “power” is “out there” is unbelievable. So, the Kantekkians were the Sons of Belial, which is not the negative thing that I interpreted it as at the time. And the Sons of the Law of One, was perverted to the monotheistic Judaism, which then was then transformed into the Christian religious mythos, and has been an ongoing theme since Atlantean times.

A: Woven of those who portray the lights.

Q: And that is always the way it has been. They appear as angels of light and, essentially, everything in history has been rewritten by this group.

A: Under the influence of others. And whom do you suppose?

Q: Well, the Orion STS.

A: Sending pillars of light and chariots of fire to deliver the message.

Most certainly, this Rennes-le-Château business is one of the clearest examples of such manipulations. It is, as Mr. Haggar suggests, “A movement to remysticise Christendom, and other religions,” designed as the infrastructure of a “one worldwide (albeit American-created) civilisation.” He also astutely points out: “from the point of view of the coming American-led worldwide civilisation, the New Age groups have been doing excellent work in preparing for the worldwide culture ahead.”

It is extremely interesting that Mr. Haggar suggests that this “New World Religion” will be American-created in light of a remark made by the Cassiopaeans:

Q: (L) Why are there more abductions by the grays in the United States than in other countries around the world?

A: Government opened channel. North America is the “capitol” of STS, currently.

Yes indeed, flocks of them will be on the tops of skyscrapers holding their welcome signs, dancing and celebrating the arrival of their saviors, those coming to serve mankind — as the main course, I should add!

In the autumn of 1996, the BBC presented another Rennes-le-Château program that essentially debunked the whole thing. They were now saying that the parchments that were supposed to have been found by Bérenger Saunière were modern forgeries. It seems that they were forged by a close associate of Pierre Plantard, the Marquis Philippe de Cherisey. Apparently, they had quarreled and one ratted on the other. Pierre Plantard was exposed as a subversive with Nazi connections and extreme right-wing political inclinations. Not only that, but M. Plantard had convictions for crimes of deception.

The so-called Secret Dossiers of the Priory of Sion that had been planted in the Bibliotheque Nationale were shown to be very clever fabrications combining a deep knowledge of history combined with masterful divergence into fantasy. And so on.

Apparently, from the research done for this program, it was learned that Gerard de Sède knew that the documents were forged either before his first meeting with Henry Lincoln, or very soon thereafter. Henry Lincoln and his associates worked for ten years unaware that they were being led down the primrose path.

Nevertheless, most of the authors who have written on the subject of Rennes-le-Château have followed the research of LL&B. They all seem to accept the validity of the Priory of Sion and the Priory documents and Secret Dossiers and all that. But let’s not toss the baby out with the bathwater. Obviously, there was something going on there in Rennes-le-Château that was very powerful to deceive so many people.

Recently, a new book was published entitled Web of Gold by a gentleman named Guy Patton. Mr. Patton contends that there is a cabal of some sort surrounding the Rennes-le-Château mystery, and they are associated with Nazi types. He makes a good case for Plantard’s association with such. More interesting is his connection of the politics of the Abbé Saunière with certain groups who were involved in the Arktos myth of Aryan supremacy. My only complaint about this book is that Mr. Patton didn’t check the sources of his sources and the book is rather shallow in terms of claiming that the whole issue of Rennes le Château is the hidden great treasure of the Jewish Temple and that this is what the Nazis and others have been after for a very long time. It is not that, I can assure you. But, it is obvious that they are definitely after something that they believe will give them ultimate power over the entire globe. It may be that the secret to this is revealed in Rennes-le-Château to those astute enough to wade through the disinformation.

It does seem pretty clear that there is a strong belief in a treasure of some sort being hidden in the region, but another book, The Horse of God, which suggests by a series of more amazing coincidences that the treasure is the Ark of the Covenant, indicates that Abbé Saunière was being paid by Abbé Boudet. Tracking the spending habits of Abbé Saunière does seem to confirm this. He did have a falling out with Boudet, his friend, and during this time, the flow of money ceased. Shortly after their reconciliation, the money began to flow again and Saunière made some ambitious building plans, but Boudet died rather soon after, and it was all brought to a halt by Saunière’s death as well. Maybe one brought about the death of the other, and then had to be gotten rid of?

Yet another recent book has come along, Rex Deus, that surpasses all the others in its absurdity and reliance on the same old assumptions. Only the fraud chronicled in this one is truly pathetic compared to the work of the Priory of Sion. In Rex Deus, the “bloodline” is that of the twenty-four elders of the Temple of Jerusalem, and the only proponent of the idea is a strange informant who mysteriously appears to the authors and tells them his story with great sincerity and conviction. Unfortunately, he was unable to provide the documents that he claimed existed because his brother sold the dresser in which they were hidden (!). How sad and how convenient. Of course, the authors claim to be extremely impressed by his manner, his story, and the subsequent verification they found in other works (most of which were based on the Rennes-le-Château business to begin with). Geez! Didn’t they learn anything from LL&B’s experiences?

The only question I have for Marilyn Hopkins, Graham Simmans and Tim Wallace-Murphy about their book, Rex Deus, is: did you ask your guy to take a blood test? If he was of the line of the priests of the Temple as he claims, that means he is a Cohen, and it has been proven scientifically that the Cohens have a very distinct set of genetic markers.

Cohanim (plural of Cohen) are the priestly family of the Jewish people, members of the Tribe of Levi. Jewish tradition, based on the Torah, is that all Cohanim are direct descendants of Aaron, the brother of Moses. The Cohen line is patrilineal, passed from father to son without interruption for 3,300 years, or more than 100 generations.

In a study, as reported in the prestigious British science journal, Nature (January 2, 1997), 188 Jewish males were asked to contribute some cheek cells from which their DNA was extracted for study. Participants from Israel, England and North America were asked to identify whether they were a Cohen, Levi or Israelite, and to identify their family background. The results of the analysis of the Y chromosome markers of the Cohanim and non-Cohanim were indeed significant. A particular marker, (YAP-) was detected in 98.5 percent of the Cohanim, and in a significantly lower percentage of non-Cohanim.

In a second study, Dr. Skorecki and associates gathered more DNA samples and expanded their selection of Y chromosome markers. Solidifying their hypothesis of the Cohens’ common ancestor, they found that a particular array of six chromosomal markers was found in 97 of the 106 Cohens tested. This collection of markers has come to be known as the Cohen Modal Hapoltype (CMH), the standard genetic signature of the Jewish priestly family. The chances of these findings happening at random is greater than one in 10,000.

In the absence of a single shred of evidence to prove the “Rex Deus” claims of their informant, it wouldn’t be too much to ask for this — a few cheek cells and you’ve got a case. Without it, you’ve done nothing but clutter the market with more of the same old nonsense.

But, getting back to the repeated incidents of “amazing synchronicities” and coincidences, and being led to this or that amazing discovery, I think that the authors of The Tomb of God (which claims that the secret is that the body of Jesus is buried near Rennes) and The Horse of God, are right up there with LL&B for weirdness. The experiences described by Martha Neyman, author of the latter work, prompted an exchange between us that I would like to share here:

From: Laura Knight-Jadczyk

Date sent: Tue, 3 Nov 1998

Dear Martha,

… I realized a long time ago that this Rennes-le-Château “business” was an “engineered” archetype. Those who have played parts in it have done so for reasons, though, most often, they did not even realize that they were being manipulated to say and do what they did by the “hidden superiors.” And, make no mistake about it, these beings DO exist and all the events of our lives and world are “managed” by them from behind the scenes. They create and destroy “secret societies” at will, including Templars, Priory of Sion, Masons, Rosicrucians, etc. These are all “covers” and “smoke screens.” And, they have existed, in a continuous line, for many thousands of years.

For this reason, the sequence of events that you have so rationally described, regarding the main players in this “drama” is most important to me. It fit with some of my own assessments, which I had already made about Saunière, Gelis, Boudet and Bigou. There is a “rule” of espionage, which goes: observe the facts, ONLY the facts, and extrapolate backwards to discover WHO benefits from a given situation, and this will give you the key to the underlying truth. Well, I have been doing this about the events of history and geography for most of my adult life, and it is a most productive exercise no matter what is being assessed.

The world, in its broadest sense, is a projection, if you will, similar to the shadows on Plato’s cave. We cannot know fully the origins of these “shadow” images unless we can overcome our fascination with the moving patterns and leave the cave. But, doing that implies that we must first be aware that we CAN leave the cave…

As I said, this business is an “engineered archetype.” Rather, it is a holographic projection of a much larger drama. But, figuring out the small-scale mystery is the key to projecting the template onto a larger landscape. It does not end, or even begin, in Southern France.

Now, there are certain “key points” on the planet which I have discovered… with strange names and numbers… and “temple” characteristics (in the original sense of the word) that are, apparently, veiled from the awareness of others thus far. There are symbolic and semiotic and philological connections of a substratum of “events” that stagger the mind.

The one thing that few people think about is “WHO IS DOING ALL THIS?” And, connected to this is: what are their capabilities? And this is most important. If I, for one instant, underestimate the capabilities of “them,” I will surely be devoured. It is in this lack of realization of who holds the secrets and the intellect behind it that causes most people to stumble and fall in their analysis. And since I am convinced it is an EPOCHAL secret, which involves the history of mankind, the moving and changing of large masses of energy on the planet itself, then I HAVE to think about the “figures” behind such a thing.

One example I will mention… you remember what you wrote about St. Anthony’s day… January 17… and the number nine… and all that. It is reasonable based on what is available … but there are meanings even older than that… and they pop up in Mayan constructs… I was in Mexico last year and came across a figure carved in what was once a bas-relief of a Mayan temple… It was a figure of a man with the flesh removed from his thighs and skull… but with the rest of his body intact… and his legs were crossed… I have an excellent photo of it which I have shared with a few people. I’m sure you recognize the symbol… And there is the ancient cult of Janus — guardian of the door — to whom January 17 was sacred… and there was the celebration of St. Augustine on the same day…. and there is the hermit in the grail stories… whose hero is Perceval… “He who pierces the valley,” or “mummy with the long member,” or “pour suivant…” and so on; take your pick.

Ms. Neyman wrote back to me:

Subject: Re: The Horse

Date sent: Tue, 24 Nov 1998

Dear Laura,

By now you might have finished reading my book, I think… As you are so well experienced in the subject of symbolism and know so much more then I do, I would appreciate it very much if you could let me have your opinion…

I found it difficult to try to explain to her that her experiences with all the coincidences, the insights, and the “magical landscape” that showed itself to her with synchronous and stunning symbols, just might be a big manipulation, but I was going to try:

I am impressed with what you have done, having started with more or less a blank screen. You have had the unique advantage of “being there,” which I have not… but, yes, there is a LOT I would like to discuss and I have been debating how open you would be to this “putting two heads together” on the subject. I know that I am like a mother about anything I write and very sensitive to what might be construed as “criticism,” so I have not wanted to say anything that would be offensive. But, at the same time, you are THERE and can answer some questions I have and I think that there are some things that need further work. If you are ready to have a little dialogue about this “Rennes etc” business, well, tell me.

What I want to do is something like what my husband does… you get a theory, you build the structure, you see how it behaves as a “working hypothesis,” and if there are problems, you tear it apart and start over. That sort of thing is what he does. He will have an idea, spend weeks on page after page of mathematical calculations and then hit a brick wall and have to start all over again. We sat up one night and analyzed, in a sort of “hard science” way the evidence of the “phenomenon” of Rennes… it was an interesting exercise with interesting “conclusions.” I was thinking at the time that it was too bad you weren’t with us as there were a lot of questions we had no answers to because we did not have the opportunity for personal investigation or observation.

I will say that some of the things you have found are fascinating and I am convinced that there is some purpose and reason, and maybe even your ultimate conclusions are correct — or pretty close… but there are some big gaps in the symbolic appreciation and historical background of same. There are many things to be gone over in a sort of “cold” and analytical way — even including this business of “synchronicity” that we both have experienced in this matter. This “amazing” confluence of “clues and artifacts” tends to convince us that our ideas are correct… but I have found that, often, the matter is much more complicated — like a chess game. Some of these “synchronous” events are like a move on the chessboard by these “unknowns” and they are waiting to see if we will see through the ruse… We can either make the mistake of “falling into the trap” of taking the piece “offered” while we are being set up for a swift and stunning mate. NEVER underestimate the cleverness and cunning of the opponent.

Your ideas are framed in much the same terms as the guys who wrote the Holy Grail series and the guy who wrote the Tomb of God… in the sense that all sorts of “synchronous” and “amazing” correspondences were found in response to the various ideas had by all. This should be taken as a warning that it can occur to just about anybody. All of you were convinced that you were “on the right track” because of these things… don’t forget that. They, as sincerely as you, were convinced of the “rightness” of their “path” and conclusions because of the SAME TYPES OF REMARKABLE SYNCHRONICITIES!!!!

Remember — NEVER FORGET — that the opponent wants us to come to false conclusions… And never forget that he/they are so much more clever and practiced at this deception that we can even imagine. This is NOT a secret of a couple hundred years duration. It is THOUSANDS of years old…

Remember, this is all “thinking out loud,” so to speak, or on paper. It is just a “scenario” to be tried and tested. I don’t pretend that it is the “bottom line.” So, here goes: On page 4 you talk about the BBC documentary where the media, which had once “touted” the “mystery,” now has pretty much squashed it. You ask a very good question: Why murder a good story?

Well, perhaps, at this point in time, they were NOT murdering a good story because there were already so many adherents to it, that it would be impossible to do so… it was just more controversy. In fact, this move could have been designed to make people ask the very question you did… sort of like the government constantly pooh-poohing UFOs… the more they did, the more people believed they were hiding something. So, this IS a valid point considering “double and triple reverse psychology” commonly in use by the media and whoever runs it. So, I think that your question goes much deeper than you think.

But, it also puts light in another area… it seems that these guys who were making money off of this business were being manipulated from start to finish. And making money was, apparently, not the objective — though for them it might have been a lure. Or it might have started for them as a lure, or a farce… and grew very serious later. Nevertheless, we may deduce that the objective of this pronouncement by the BBC was to do the exact opposite… to breathe new life into the subject by reverse psychology.

So, the question about this now is: why? Why do they WANT to keep attention on this area? Why was the attention drawn here to begin with?

Now, let’s skip to page 17 where you list the “facts” which can be substantiated and back-engineer a bit from there. The three “facts”:

Documents were found in 1886. We cannot accept this as a fact. It is only hearsay. No matter about the various arguments for, about, against, or whatever, no one, NO ONE, outside of persons whose credibility is in question has EVER SEEN any actual, ancient or even “pretty old” MSS. They have not been submitted to any kind of professional analysis because they have never been produced. To say, “The discovery of the manuscripts is the key to the mystery of Rennes-le-Château,” is a huge assumption. So, let’s set them aside for the moment. (Don’t despair, I am ruthless, but it is useful, as you will see.)

That Saunier was digging at night in the cemetery without obvious purpose, aided by his servant. Now, on this, what verification is there? I am not too clear from the various stories… but it seems that the primary source of this information was an old guy who “remembered” all this many years later… and, considering the circumstances of all the rest… well, it is hearsay. Not admissible as a fact.

Now, there is the “fact,” that Saunière spent more money than his income as a village priest allowed. At last, we are on firm footing. There are ledger books, you say, with this information recorded that can be considered “hard evidence.” And, there is the evidence of the building projects and so forth which cost more money than the guy could have made. We have a FACT. Only one, so far. Remember, our BELIEFS are not important here… our feelings, our responses to our amazing “synchronicities,” and all that. We have to clear away the fog of emotion.

Now, in order to know what other “facts” there may be, maybe you can answer the following questions?

You wrote: In 1892, Saunière is often absent without permission. What he does and where he goes, remains a secret… Says WHO? Cite the source.

You wrote: In 1894, together with Marie he makes long walks. They collect stones that are used to adorn the garden with a grotto. Says WHO? Cite the source.

You wrote: Also in 1894, aided by his trustworthy helpmate, Marie, he starts to dig in his cemetery! At night, under the cover of darkness… Says WHO? Cite the source.

Now, the tomb of Marie Negre D’Ables, that he is supposed to have destroyed, but, fantastically, it happened to have been “copied”… are you aware of the investigation into the “background” of that little book where it was supposedly reproduced? That it was, very likely, at the hands of the very same persons who deposited the “Dossiers Secrets” and all that in the Biblioteque Nationale? This is pretty shaky stuff here. The very idea that the Abbé was “searching for something” could be all rumor. But, why? Where could such a rumor come from?

The story about Marie Denarnaud, (the companion of Abbé Saunière), in her old age is highly instructive: I am sure you have a few “old people” in your family and are familiar with their little “manipulations” and feelings of “helplessness” as they age. Now, just suppose there WAS some secret of the Abbé… but it had NOTHING to do with a “treasure” at all… and whatever it was, died with him as a source of income. But, Marie, in her old age, desperate to ensure her comfort, knowing that all she has is this property that is expensive to maintain, and no money coming in anymore, hints to the people who have undertaken to care for her that there is a “secret” that she will tell them before she dies… Obviously, this is to keep her “control” over her life to what little extent she can. It sounds like the old “if you are nice to me, I’ll remember you in my will,” routine so common among old people… From the descriptions I have heard, the people who were caring for her had a hard time making ends meet. Do you think that if she had some secret that would enable access to financial aid, that she would not have acted upon it herself and thereby enabled herself to PAY for her own care in old age, rather than having to depend on strangers that she controlled with the promise of a secret? It is so typical of something an old lady would do, that I am completely struck by the likelihood of it being so.

But, what happens? She dies without telling anything! Supposedly. Well, the guy spends some time looking for a possible treasure which he hopes is there… because the old lady told him so… but, no luck… maybe he realizes that he was duped… and the story you have described, about the hints to the papers about a treasure to create business for a hotel… well, the guy was just playing with the cards he was dealt, and I believe that this is the source of the whole current explosion of the “Rennes-le-Château” cottage industry in “treasure hunting.” BUT, that STILL DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE Abbé’s’S MONEY!

OK, the guy had some bucks. Not only that, but his bishop had some bucks… and both were getting paid by another priest, Boudet… and, not only that, there was a third priest who was murdered.

These FACTS are of EXTREME interest! The rest is just rumor, smokescreen, hearsay, and all that.

Now, clearly, if what you say is true, that the cash flow came from Henri Boudet who wrote the strange book about language… (And I would very much like to get my hands on a copy of it complete!), there may, indeed, be a code in there… but not what anybody thinks, I suspect.

Now, on pages 19, 20 and 21 you give some very interesting facts OUT OF SEQUENCE. I wonder if it was a subconscious oversight? Because, placing them IN SEQUENCE makes for very interesting reading: Here they are:

1852, Saunière is born.

1878, The Abbé of Rennes, Pons, dies.

1881, Abbé Charles Mocquin is appointed, but leaves after just a few months. (Any reason given for his leaving???)

1885, May 5, Abbé Antoine Croc leaves Rennes… (How long was he there? This is curious. Any reason given for leaving?)

1885, July 1, Saunière is appointed cure at Rennes…

1886, Saunier receives a “gift of cash from Comtesse de Chambord.” (Or was it really a “first payment” from Boudet? We see that Saunière isn’t going to leave after just a few months… wonder why? What is there to keep him when the other two appointees couldn’t wait to get out of there or were deemed “inappropriate” by someone?)

1886, According to the ledgers, it was at about this time that Abbé Boudet began paying money to Saunière. Was this also the time he began paying money to Msr. Billard in Carcassonne? Any dates on this? The bishop was getting twice as much as Saunière according to the figures you gave. Was it for the same period? The bishop gave most of his to charity. (Was this because of a guilty conscience?)

1887, July, The new altar is placed in the church at Rennes. This is curious. Was this a completely NEW altar, or was it a replacing of the old one? If the former, what happened to the OLD one?

1889, Bishop Felix Billard visits Rennes for the first time… (There may have been some sort of “meeting” amongst these guys. They discuss who is to get what, who is to do what, and so on…)

1891, major restoration is begun on the church… (This does not sound too strange, since there is obviously some source of money — Saunière bargained for enough to make his church the way he wanted. If he is stuck in this out-of-the-way place, he is going to enjoy it!)

1891, Sept 21, Entry in Saunière’s diary — “letter from Granes — discovery of a sepulchral vault, rain in the evening.” (Does not sound like anything unusual since he is doing a major restoration on his church. AND, he does not seem too interested in it since he did not list it first.)

1892, Hearsay that Saunière was absent without permission. (Unless there are documents to confirm this.)

1894, Hearsay, unless documented, collecting of stones for grotto.

1894, Hearsay, unless documented, digging in graveyard.

1896, Restoration of church mostly finished. Saunière buys more land.

1897, June 6, Msgr. Billard visits and the garden is unveiled. (Perhaps another “meeting” between the “guys” takes place now.)

1897, Abbé Gelis was murdered. Reportedly tortured before his death. Was supposed to retire the next day. The magistrate found money hidden at various places in the vicarage… so, he may have been on the “payroll” as well or… He was an intimate of Saunière and Boudet and had been there since 1857. How long was Boudet in the region? Was Gelis the “source” of the money to Boudet? He had been there a long time… he was going to retire… perhaps take the secret of the source of income with him, or threatened to do something else at the meeting… or, being retired, he would have been a threat in some way. This needs more examination.

1898, Saunière buys the land on which he builds his villa.

1902, The Bishop dies.

1902, A new bishop is appointed who demands that Saunière give an explanation on the origin of his wealth… Seems that the old bishop was “protecting” the other “guys” in some way, so it does not seem that it could be a “secret” that the “church” wants hidden…

1902, Saunière argues with his friend Henri Boudet. The friendly relations between Saunière and Boudet are broken off… Funny that this comes right after the Bishop dies and the new bishop demands explanations for the money from Saunière. This is the strangest thing of all. If there is some secret between them and Saunière is under pressure to reveal it, it does not seem very wise for Boudet to break off relations with Saunière if Saunière KNOWS something about Boudet that he could tell. This point needs some consideration. Something funny here.

1910, July 23, Saunière is suspended from his official duties. Seems that if Boudet was worried that Saunière would reveal something, he would come to his rescue. What was happening to Boudet at this time? Was he getting along just fine, or was he being questioned also?

1915, Boudet sends a message to Saunière… shortly after the reconciliation, Boudet dies. This is funny, that Boudet sends this message… is it documented? Or, is it documented BY Saunière? Did he go to visit Boudet uninvited? How soon after the visit does Boudet die?

1916, Saunière decides to build on a REALLY grand scale…

1917, January 22, Saunière dies suddenly.

Now, of all the interesting facts above, the two that strike me most forcibly are the facts that, in the year following the death of Gelis, Saunière buys the land on which he plans to build his villa — but holds off the building for three years; and in the year following the death of Boudet, Saunière decides to really go “whole hog” with his building projects. So, what we have, after getting rid of the story of the parchments, treasure and all that mess, is a VERY strange story. AND, it seems to me, that once certain attention had been brought to the area due to the financial needs of Mr. Corbu and family, there was a DESPERATE need to confuse the issue — to draw attention away from the situation involving the priests — and their friendship and their finances.

The question would be WHY would this be so important at such a remove in time?

Evidence indicates that it is NOT a secret of the church; the “treasure” idea is kaput, too, as far as I can see; all the elements of the “Shepherds of Arcadia” painting as related to this area have pretty much been shown to be “cooked up.” But, there IS something going on!!!

Is there a connection between the facts that Abbé Gelis was murdered and Saunière bought land for his villa soon after? Is there a connection between the fact that Boudet died “suddenly” and Saunière made big plans to build soon after? What could be the REAL source of money being shared among these guys? Two, possibly THREE priests and a bishop… Was Saunière’s sudden death natural, considering the funny business around the deaths of the other two? What or who was it that supplied the money? Obviously, Saunière had access to it even after Boudet died, but NOT when he and Boudet were on bad terms… hmmmm? Funny? What was the connection of Gelis to the money — so that he had to die for it, as it seems? But, whatever the source, it was NOT accessible to Marie; who used the “secret” as bait to ensure her well-being until death.

So, having ripped away the entire smokescreen, we are left with a real mystery. But, that is not to say that there is not some purpose in the smokescreen, that is another subject altogether. There IS some great mystery about the Shepherds of Arcadia, but it may be far wider and more intruding than just the area around Rennes-le-Château.

Well, Ms. Neyman was not happy that I was suggesting that the Ark of the Covenant might not be the great secret. Most especially, she was not happy that I suggested that she was being manipulated to discover things to confuse the issue. And she most definitely did not want to give up the fairy tale of Rennes-le-Château!

From: Martha Neyman

Subject: Re: The Horse

Date sent: Wed, 25 Nov 1998

Of course I will answer the questions you have and I do not see this as a criticism of the work I did, because I feel, what I did was good and not done before by anyone… Even not by the writers of the Tomb of God… The book they wrote, has at first sight a “certain” resemblance with my work, but it is totally different and the “Horse of God” is not a railway, that is for sure..!

Dear Laura, do not be angry with me because I am honest to you and straight to the point… In a way, I am thinking in the same direction as you… I think, where you talk about WHY the BBC is “murdering” the story of RLC, you dig too deep. I can well imagine the US government keeping the truth about UFO’s from the people, but to believe that the respectable BBC of England is part of a plot to hide the truth of Rennes-le-Château in a sort of double psychology game, I think is going a bit too far.

You asked me a lot of questions… But… You started to ask questions about the “Preface” and the “Introduction.” Please take “This” information at “face value”..! This section is not of any importance to the rest of my book. The information in the introduction is common knowledge, mostly it came from the locals, and they are used by every book-writer…

LKJ: yes, I know that — but I want to know WHY and HOW such things were generated. I want to know if anybody ever actually documented any of these things. And these are questions that DO occur to me for whatever reason. If the only answer is “the locals said so…” well, that IS the answer. If there is an old diary where someone wrote about it, that is a different kind of answer. And, the point is: somehow, for some reason, stimulated by some “raison,” these so-called Priory of Sion fellows played on this story and the painting (which I believe is important because of the facts of Poussin’s life) got connected to this area… Is it because there was some sort of “rumor” that floated about in esoteric circles that this painting was connected to this place? Who came up with the idea in the first place?

MN: When you start writing some kind of a book, you have to start somewhere… I do not have to tell you… I did start with general information. So readers who are not so well informed, but want to know more about the whole story Rennes-le-Château, can get this general information.

LKJ: Yes, but you also did some “investigating” on your own. You observed. A lot of things you mention are not mentioned by other writers, even apart from your discoveries.

MN: That is why, in the INTRODUCTION, I wrote: Quote: At the risk of boring those readers, who know all about the history of Rennes-le-Château and its obstinate priest, I would like to repeat briefly, the “original” version, for those new to the story… Unquote. Dear Laura, those inverted commas at the word ORIGINAL were placed there on purpose… To the real initiated it means the story as it is usually told, as mysterious and uncanny as possible, without actually having completely checked out, who did what and why and who saw him doing it… This is just the “common” Rennes-le-Château story, only meant as “proof” that something weird was going on in this village and that the priest behaved strangely…

LKJ: Yes, but if none of those things are true… if they only “developed” AFTER the fact of the initial “rumor” of treasure was started, which I think you pinpointed in your description of the folks who were caring for Marie, well, then there is nothing to support the “treasure” hypothesis. Thus, if the story about treasure, the connection to the painting, which seems to have evolved from the rumors about treasure, all are “manufactured,” then one has to start looking in a different way. You are basing everything you are doing on the painting The Shepherds of Arcadia, and only because it was connected to the region by a story that turns out to be a fraud.

MN: Because as you will find out later, as you read on, you will see that Saunière’s doings have (very) little impact on the solution I found. …What I want you to comment on is symbolism…

LKJ: There are some significant symbolic images that are far more ancient and “in your face” in that painting than what you described. Every thing has multiple layers… question is: which layer do we extract from? An example is your use of the “knee” as a means of selecting “seven.” Well, the knee has some very deep meanings and is used symbolically in a rather different way in numerous sources, the oldest I have found being the Sumerian Texts… And it is not chance that “knee” is from the same root as “knead” as in bread, knight, juga, yogi, conjugal, genes, genetic, gonads, etc.

Also, the hand positions… there was in use, at the time of the painting, a “hand alphabet” which could signify either letters or numbers or both … it could also symbolize a mathematical “operation.”

MN: I started to give an explanation of the perceptible and searching for the truth in the invisible words of symbolism in “Chapter I”. So let us start from this first part… And… Do not forget I only used A SMALL part of the Christian Church symbolism to explain, sometimes “just enough” to make clear how I came to my conclusions in a logical way..! Otherwise for most of the people “absolute unknown” with this material it would have been much too complicated, long-winded and even boring.

LKJ: Agreed. But I am still trying to “connect” the painting to the area and it is difficult. And your entire book and “discovery” is based on the painting!

MN: This was only a short reply, because I feel the strong desire to write a whole day on my second book… Which has nothing to do with symbolism… It is the true story of the “Shepherds” the real “Shepherds”: the church-shepherds..! THAT is the story of the painting of Poussin… “Popes-Crusades-Templars,” it starts with the Oriental Schism in 1054 … For the “Latin Church of Rome” this was a large loss. It ended with a second huge loss: The reformation in 1618.

LKJ: “Well, if you haven’t done so already… look at the King Rene painting reproduced in the Tomb of God book alongside the “Shepherds” painting… just look at them casually and see what things you note that correspond… Note the lance and the horse head and compare it to the “horse head” and shepherd’s staff in the Arcadia painting… Note the position of the sun and the mountain peak in both paintings… note the posture of the Shepherdess and King Rene… note the ditch and flow of water exiting from the stone in the two paintings… note the funny leaning tree in the Rene painting… the funny hand gestures…. Then look at the Teniers painting and note the shape of the “window” and compare it to the “chink” in the tomb in the Shepherd’s painting… Then, have a look at Bacchus and Ariadne by Titian… half-close your eyes and see what you can see… note the funny overturned vessel on the drapery… the dog… go back to Teniers and note the vessel in the window… the bird… In the Shepherds painting, note the drapery of the figures… the crossed shins, the bared breasts of the figures… count the numbers of knees, hands displayed… Note the positions… it is not as simple as the “finger of Jupiter”, Venus or whatever…

The system of codes being transmitted via hand signals was widespread in both the Orient and the Occident. There are allusions to it in the writings of several Greek and Latin writers, such as Plutarch, who attributes these words to Orontes, son-in-law of King Artaxerxes of Persia: “Just as in calculating, fingers sometimes have a value of ten thousand and sometimes of only one, the favorites of kings may be either everything or almost nothing.”

Apuleius married a rich widow named Aemilia Pudentialla and was accused of having used magic to win her favor. He defended himself before Proconsul Claudius Maximus in the presence of Emilianus, his main accuser, who had unkindly said that Aemilia was sixty years old, when she was actually only forty. Here is the record of how Apuleius addressed his accuser: “How dare you, Emilianus, increase the real number of Aemilia Pudentilla’s age by half, or even a third? If you had said ‘thirty’ for ‘ten’ it might have been thought that your mistake came from holding your fingers open when you should have held them curved. But, forty is the easiest number to indicate since it is expressed with the hand open.”

Saint Jerome wrote: “Thirty corresponds to marriage, for the conjunction of the fingers as though in a sweet kiss represents the husband and the wife. … And the gesture for a hundred, transferred from the left hand to the right, on the same fingers, expresses on the right hand the crown of virginity.”

The Venerable Bede7 gives many examples of how the system can be used for silent communication. In Islamic religions, finger-counting and signing was used extensively (remember the “contamination” of the Templars by Sufism… which is so similar to what is known of the Cathars that one cannot help but think that there is a connection… and, also, what is known of the Druids…) There are a LOT of quotes I can cite about this “finger and hand” signaling system… but, it would get tedious.

The meanings of these things were obvious to people of the time, (which may be why the painting was hidden), and the citations from old MSS so common that it shows that such allusions were used both in paintings and in written references… otherwise, the readers could not have been expected to understand them, but it is very obscure to those of us in the 20th century who are not familiar with the method, and casually pass over such references as being “unimportant.” Thus, this may be an important consideration in evaluating the message of this and other paintings.

The mathematical angles are another thing altogether. At the time, the “Golden Mean” was a standard of Art… it was taught in all the art schools that a composition based on this ratio was more aesthetically pleasing… so, pupils were taught, and masters perfected, the art of compositional placement on the medium according to the Pythagorean principles. It meant, essentially, nothing. It can be found in thousands of paintings. Its presence in art is generally meaningless. However, your finding of the stone with the ratio figure engraved upon it … well, that requires some examination, but not necessarily in the precise terms you define. On the other hand, it may be meaningless.

This was the last of the Neyman letters … after this, she wrote and told me she did not see any point in discussing it further as she knew the truth because she had been “led” by “amazing synchronicities” and all that. She positively did not believe in any kind of conspiracy, she did not believe that there were strange beings controlling our world and manipulating our perceptions, and she most assuredly was convinced that the Catholic Church was benevolent and the “True Shepherds.” Same song, different verse.

My point is: I can see that there is something huge going on here, and it seems that everybody has had so amazing a series of confirmations of ideas, one leading to another … and work, work, work on the research and digging and all that. But, each one has come to a somewhat different conclusion and has been led down a somewhat different path. The odd thing about the whole place is a quality of self-reflection, I think. I would like to get to the very bottom of the blasted thing. I guess I have a couple of axioms I live by: one is “get results.” The other is: “when all the lies are stripped away, what remains is the truth.”

The important thing to remember, at this point, is that all of the conjecture about the Poussin painting, “The Shepherds of Arcadia,” resulted from the deciphering of the mysterious parchments purportedly found by Bérenger Saunière and reproduced in Gerard de Sède’s book. In other words, the fake parchments as described above, were the ones that gave clues that the painting was significant in some way. Additionally, there was the tombstone of a noble lady of the district that had disappeared but was supposed to reproduce the phrase “Et in Arcadia Ego” on its face, along with other suggestive symbols and encoded messages.

Out of all the things I read on the subject of Rennes-le-Château, the one thing that did stand out as interesting, as I mentioned to Ms. Neyman, was the Poussin painting. Even if I was of the opinion that there were negative forces at work in this matter, I knew enough about the ways in which they operated to know that they often used truth to conceal lies and vice versa. Out of all the mess that was going on in Rennes-le-Château, this painting seemed to be the only thing that was really out of place.

For some reason, the perpetrators of the fraud selected this painting and not another. There were any number of old masters they could have called on to do the job, but they didn’t. Why?

Traditionally and experientially, the Control System usually adheres to the truth very closely in their disinformation, diverging and twisting only certain significant issues so as to lead the seeker astray. So, what was there of truth in this story? Were they using a painting that did include a true clue system, and were they then creating relationships to distort and obfuscate the clues, or even to cause them to lead to a completely erroneous conclusion, but a conclusion that was extremely useful to them?

Painted c. 1640, “Les Bergers d’Arcadie” did have a remarkable resemblance to the tomb that was found in the Rennes-le-Château countryside, even if this tomb was later proven to have been a late addition. Art historians are certain that Poussin never visited the Rennes area and, therefore, could not have painted this tomb, even if it had existed there at the time of Poussin. But, there is a link between Poussin and the nearby village of Arques.

According to research done by Guy Patton (keep in mind that the sources of the source have yet to be verified), writing in Web of Gold, Poussin spent most of his life in Rome and, during this same time period, Henrietta-Catherine de Joyeuse and her husband, Charles de Lorraine, were in exile there at the order of Cardinal de Richelieu.

Henrietta-Catherine’s father was Ange de Joyeuse, Marshal Governor of the Languedoc, the area in which Rennes-le-Château is located. Also, Poussin was under the protection of Sublet de Noyes, the Royal Treasurer and Secretary of State during one period he was in Paris. This man’s father was financial advisor to the household of the Cardinal de Joyeuse, the uncle of Charles de Lorraine. Whether or not they ever met with Poussin, we don’t know, but it is possible that a secret was conveyed, and a painting was executed containing clues. It is my thought that, in later years, the tomb was built deliberately to lead away from this secret (we aren’t playing with amateurs here!).

In any event, Poussin’s “Les Bergers d’Arcadie” is the second version he painted. I know that artists often paint more than one version of a specific subject, but I have a book full of Poussin works, and he doesn’t seem to have been in the habit of doing this. So, it is curious that he did so with this particular subject. Especially when you look at the painting, which is, actually, quite boring.

Nevertheless, there is another hard fact that comes into play here: Nicolas Fouquet was the Superintendent of Finances to Louis XIV. He had a brother, Abbé Louis Fouquet, who visited Poussin in Rome in 1656. The Abbé sent a letter concerning this meeting to his brother. This letter is in the archives of the Cosse-Brissac family, and says, in part:

I delivered to M. Poussin the letter that you did him the honour to write to him; he evinced all the joy imaginable. You would not believe, Monsieur, either the pains that he takes in your service, or the affection with which he takes them, nor the worth and integrity that he brings to all things.

He and I have planned certain matters that I could in a little undertake to the end for you, by which M. Poussin could provide you with advantages that kings would have great pains to get from him, and that, after him, perhaps no one in the world could recover in the centuries to come; and what is more, this could be done without much expense and could even turn to profit, and these are things so hard to discover that no one, no matter who, upon this earth today could have better fortune or even so much …

Well, of course everybody and his brother immediately jumped to the conclusion that this must refer to the “accursed treasure” of either the Temple of Solomon, the Cathars or the Templars. I, on the other hand, had a quite different reaction to reading this. You see, after the months and months of reading alchemical literature, and already making the connection between Rennes-le-Château and the Pyrenees where an enclave of alchemists is supposed to exist, I saw nothing in the above letter but a clear reference to alchemy.

I tried to think about it in terms of a treasure, but it just didn’t fit. Kings have often had great treasure or access to same, and, in monetary terms, one treasure is as good as another. The remark “could even turn to profit,” sort of takes away the idea of treasure, and evokes a sense of some sort of activity.

Well, I began to really examine this painting for clues. Now, aside from the fact that I already mentioned, which is that this is a very boring piece of work, what do we note about it in particular? I was trying to look at it in an open-minded way — just taking note of any little thing that would pop into my mind.

The first thing that I noted was all the knee and elbows up front and in your face. I also noted the crossed shins of the figure on the left, which is a classic Masonic/Templar clue. Then, there was the tree growing in a straight line with the head of the woman, and that sort of general thing.

I know that lots of people have undertaken to analyze this painting by measuring angles, drawing circles, and just generally going around their elbows to get to their thumbs, but I think I have a couple of things to offer here.

The image above is a close-up of the pointing finger. What you see is that the man with the beard is pointing to the letter “R” in sequence with “RC” which is, of course, short for “Rose Cross.”

The other painting that Bérenger Saunière was purported to have purchased was Tenier’s Temptation of St. Anthony. If you look at this painting (getting a better image than I can provide here is worth the trouble) reveals an interesting thing: the crack on the painting of the tomb in the Shepherd’s painting is almost identical to the “window” opening of St. Anthony’s temptation. Not only that, but the extremely bizarre creatures that are tormenting the saint may be important.

Now, this final close-up is most interesting (see below). It also gives a better view of the crack, even if upside-down. Look very carefully at the shapes of the man’s limbs and then compare them to the shadow on the tomb, noting particularly that the shadow of the elbow is just above the crack we have already looked at. Now, does that shadow look like it matches? Well, there’s just no accounting for shadows sometimes, but this one looks compellingly like a rearing horse.

So, we have horses, knees and elbows, crossed shins and cracks/windows. Meanwhile we have three guys and one gal, and some dead person in a tomb. All three of our guys have staffs; two of them are in a position that was suggested to me to represent symbolic beheading. The other has his staff more on his shoulder, which is imagery related to the constellation, Cepheus, the consort of Cassiopeia, interestingly.

I am not even going to pretend to have the answer to this puzzle of the Poussin painting. But, I will mention that I had a dream about it one night — that it was a map that needed to be laid over Europe. And, sure enough, when I matched the bent knee of the kneeling guy to the Rhine River, all kinds of interesting associations popped up.

I should also mention that certain hand gestures indicate letters of the alphabet and numbers, and would have been understood at the time Poussin painted them. In this case, we have, from left to right, T/19, V/20, C/3, and I/9. Does it mean anything? I don’t know.

Since the writing of The Wave, I have had additional thoughts about the painting that may, actually, be the solution. The painting was done between 1638 and 1640 and in 1685 became part of the private collection of Louis XIV. Louis, it should be noted, was born in 1638. His birth came after 23 years of his estranged parents’ childlessness. Though his mother, Anne of Austria, had 4 stillborn children prior to his birth, it seems clear from the historical material that his father, Louis XIII was homosexual. Anne was treated very badly by her mother-in-law, Catherine de Medici, and humiliated by her husband and his homosexual affairs. It is likely that Anne, with the collusion of Cardinal Richelieu, who ran the French empire almost single-handedly, managed to produce an heir by another man. If one compares paintings of Anne of Austria to the woman in the “Shepherds of Arcadia” painting, a striking resemblance is immediately apparent. This all ties in with the amazing story of the Man in the Iron Mask (it was actually velvet), but we don’t have time to go into that now.

In any event, my conclusion is that the reason for the importance of the “Shepherds of Arcadia” painting is that it depicted the true parentage of Louis XIV and made a rather bold statement about it as well. The mysterious letter from Abbé Louis Fouquet to his brother, Nicolas Fouquet, the Superintendent of Finances to Louis XIV saying that certain knowledge could be turned to profit, referred to this fact as well and probably implied blackmail.

Yes, I know, not exactly an amazing or mysterious solution to the mystery, but there it is; the facts fit rather well.

So now, back to the original text after this brief insertion of added detail.

At about the same time that I was thinking about the “Shepherds of Arcadia,” I had been given a set of the Matrix books put out by Val Valerian (John Grace), volumes I through III, and was also deeply involved in reading them. For me, it was an amazing experience to find so many points of confirmation of the Cassiopaean material. But, at the same time, I was troubled by the many, many different and conflicting accounts of the purported alien realities that were all tossed in there together. Some of this material was so far out that my ability to keep an open mind was being seriously challenged. It was as though Valerian had just simply gathered everything he could get his hands on from every field and resource that approached the subjects of conspiracy, UFOs and aliens and tossed it all in together in an enormous word salad. Every conspiracy you have ever heard of or could imagine was in the pages of those books. And, there had been no effort to edit or annotate them, so that the reader was left baffled as to what to think about it all, much less what to consider as being true.

In many cases, I was sure that a large segment of this material had been presented with tongue in cheek; in other cases, I was certain that it was blatant disinformation. And, as I read through these thousands of pages of descriptions of agendas, realities, research and pseudo-research, conspiracies and counter-conspiracies, confirmations and contradictions, I would turn more and more to the Cassiopaeans to see what they would say about some of these things. I had no idea how weird it was going to get. It was during this period of time that we learned about retrieved human bodies that were being used for Transdimensional Remolecularization. It was also during this period that the Cassiopaeans talked about “robot” people and other alien types that we have discussed in the last volume of The Wave.

It was extremely difficult for all of us to both grasp and accept these truly bizarre and outlandish descriptions of our reality. Well, that is not exactly correct; it wasn’t our third density reality that was being described, but the denizens of fourth density. I was beginning to understand that it must be the reality from which religions and myths were drawn; the reality of the “watchers,” a world stranger by far than any descriptions of Alice Through the Looking Glass.

As we progressed through this period of time, it also became apparent that there was information the Cassiopaeans were trying to convey at every opportunity. It seemed that they wanted us to have as full an understanding of the World of the Secret Masters as possible. I was reminded of William James’ remark:

Our science is but a drop, our ignorance a sea. Whatever else be certain, this at least is certain: that the world of our present natural knowledge is enveloped in a larger world of some sort, of whose residual properties we at present can frame no positive idea. (James 1895/1962)

And it was going to get stranger before it was over.

1 Present day experts question the existence of the “First Temple” because there is no evidence for a kingdom of David and Solomon. See Israel Finkelstein’s David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible’s Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition (Free Press, 2007)

2 Part of The Secret History of the World and How to Get Out Alive.

3 There are many, many problems with this history from numerous angles, according to mathematician Anatoly Fomenko, author of History: Science or Fiction?. But for the moment, we are dealing with what are generally-accepted versions, though, in the end, all of them may be falsified accounts.

4 Note in the following passage from Genesis that the “children of Heth” is just another way to say “Hittites”. “23:3 And Abraham stood up from before his dead, and spake unto the sons of Heth, saying, 23:4 I am a stranger and a sojourner with you: give me a possession of a burying place with you, that I may bury my dead out of my sight. 23:5 And the children of Heth answered Abraham, saying unto him, 23:6 Hear us, my lord: thou art a mighty prince among us: in the choice of our sepulchres bury thy dead; none of us shall withhold from thee his sepulchre, but that thou mayest bury thy dead. 23:10 And Ephron dwelt among the children of Heth: and Ephron the Hittite answered Abraham …” Emilio Spedicato (University of Bergamo) summarizes some of the data suggesting Indo-European origins for Abraham in his paper “Galactic Encounters, Apollo Objects and Atlantis: A Catastrophical Scenario for Discontinuities in Human History”, pp. 42-43.

5 The reader ought to keep in mind that this was written before September 11, 2001, and now we know just who is trying to create a One World Order.

6 This was prescient at the time it was written, 1999.

7 Historian and Doctor of the Church, born 672 or 673; died 735. Wrote “Ecclesiastical History of the English People.”

Related Articles: